China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[Triton]

I wouldn't be surprised if the People's Republic of China sends survey ships into the Senkaku Islands next to gauge potential fishing, oil, and gas reserves in the region.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I believe that the People's Republic of China expects a policy of appeasement to its brinkmanship.

And why wouldn't they? Worked for the Iranians.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Will we see the equivalent of the Munich Agreement as a resolution to this territorial dispute in the East China Sea? Or will the situation escalate into a Third Sino-Japanese War?

China has little leverage beyond military action to force Japan to even acknowledge there is a dispute to sovereignty. China also has little capacity to garner international support because the last thing the third world nations ever want the UN to do is to start interfering with borders. And besides the UNGA does not make anything other than noise and China can’t make the UNSC do anything.

So for China the options are to try and bribe Japan with sweetness and cash. Which they aren’t doing. Try and threaten Japan with brinkmanship, which they are doing now and which doesn’t seem to be working well. Or invade and occupy the islands.

The last step would be disastrous. If Japan and the USA were unwilling to back down over this they could blockade China. Which would result in Chinese economic collapse. 80% of Chinese exports are consumer items: textile and personal electronics. While their loss to the west would be very harsh on the retail sector it would not cause significant economic dislocation Enforced savings in place of consumption due to a massive shortage in consumer goods would probably be a good thing.

Despite all the media burble China has no serious access denial capability to stop American lead forces from free reign over its littorals. Deep strikes via stealth capability are also available to cause significant disruption and attrition to key Chinese military capabilities. The only option on China’s slate would be to invade another neighbour. But an invasion of Taiwan with American resistance would be near impossible and anywhere else would just widen the conflict with no clear gain.

 

[Orionblamblam]

But an invasion of Taiwan with American resistance would be near impossible and anywhere else would just widen the conflict with no clear gain.

I consider it unwise to discount any wacky motives of a nation with a self esteem issue and forty million excess males of military age.

 

[sferrin]

Will we see the equivalent of the Munich Agreement as a resolution to this territorial dispute in the East China Sea? Or will the situation escalate into a Third Sino-Japanese War?

China has little leverage beyond military action to force Japan to even acknowledge there is a dispute to sovereignty. China also has little capacity to garner international support because the last thing the third world nations ever want the UN to do is to start interfering with borders. And besides the UNGA does not make anything other than noise and China can’t make the UNSC do anything.

So for China the options are to try and bribe Japan with sweetness and cash. Which they aren’t doing. Try and threaten Japan with brinkmanship, which they are doing now and which doesn’t seem to be working well. Or invade and occupy the islands.

The last step would be disastrous. If Japan and the USA were unwilling to back down over this they could blockade China. Which would result in Chinese economic collapse. 80% of Chinese exports are consumer items: textile and personal electronics. While their loss to the west would be very harsh on the retail sector it would not cause significant economic dislocation Enforced savings in place of consumption due to a massive shortage in consumer goods would probably be a good thing.

Despite all the media burble China has no serious access denial capability to stop American lead forces from free reign over its littorals. Deep strikes via stealth capability are also available to cause significant disruption and attrition to key Chinese military capabilities. The only option on China’s slate would be to invade another neighbour. But an invasion of Taiwan with American resistance would be near impossible and anywhere else would just widen the conflict with no clear gain.

This would all be true - if the US had the spine to stand by Japan. I'm not seeing it with this administration.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I consider it unwise to discount any wacky motives of a nation with a self esteem issue and forty million excess males of military age.

I'm not saying they won't try and do it just that if they did it wouldn't work for them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This would all be true - if the US had the spine to stand by Japan. I'm not seeing it with this administration.

Well this dispute plays to all of America's strengths. Not the aggressor, on the side of democracy vs dictatorship, air and sea battles not a land occupation, strong vs weak and against the primary holder of American debt. It will be like WWI and WWII all over again. America gets to wipe its debt slate clean at someone else’s expense.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I consider it unwise to discount any wacky motives of a nation with a self esteem issue and forty million excess males of military age.

I'm not saying they won't try and do it just that if they did it wouldn't work for them.

Are you sure? If you impute to the ChiComs motivations that would make sense to western nations, you might be surprised. If China was ruled like a western power, an invasion of Taiwan would be for the purpose of actually *taking* Taiwan, and coming out of the process better/richer/stronger than they went in. But China... *maybe* an invasion of Taiwan or a war with Japan would not be for material gain, but just to create a meat grinder. It would of course wear down Japanese/Taiwanese economic ability... and it would rid China of a great many excess males who, if left at home, might eventually create trouble at home.

Given how many millions Mao was willing to simply exterminate for his cultural goals (as were his fellow travelers Stalin and Hitler), I would not be so quick to suggest a war that looks insane to *us* would look insane to the ChiComs.

 

[starviking]

This would all be true - if the US had the spine to stand by Japan. I'm not seeing it with this administration.

So far the US Administration has walked the walk and talked the talk:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/03/national/u-s-backs-japan-against-adiz-biden/
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/27/world/u-s-bombers-defy-chinese-air-zone/
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/24/national/u-s-vows-to-defend-japan-if-china-air-zone-sparks-crisis/

 

[Rickshaw]

I consider it unwise to discount any wacky motives of a nation with a self esteem issue and forty million excess males of military age.

I'm not saying they won't try and do it just that if they did it wouldn't work for them.

Are you sure? If you impute to the ChiComs motivations that would make sense to western nations, you might be surprised. If China was ruled like a western power, an invasion of Taiwan would be for the purpose of actually *taking* Taiwan, and coming out of the process better/richer/stronger than they went in. But China... *maybe* an invasion of Taiwan or a war with Japan would not be for material gain, but just to create a meat grinder. It would of course wear down Japanese/Taiwanese economic ability... and it would rid China of a great many excess males who, if left at home, might eventually create trouble at home.

Given how many millions Mao was willing to simply exterminate for his cultural goals (as were his fellow travelers Stalin and Hitler), I would not be so quick to suggest a war that looks insane to *us* would look insane to the ChiComs.

Are you really this politically naive? Hitler was a fascist, Stalin and Mao at least nominally Communist. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

As for your inability to fathom Mao's political goals, thats not surprising really if you can't differentiate between Communism and Fascism. Particularly when you consider that his successors are very different indeed to him and his generation. China ceased practising Communism when Deng came to power after Mao's death. Nowadays, they very capitalist indeed.

 

[Deino]

In the opinion on China Japan illegally seized Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands through the first Sino-Japanese war in 1895. Based on the “Cairo Declaration” after WW II it was stated in explicit terms that: “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories she has taken by violence and greed.” Nearly two years later in the “Potsdam Proclamation” these points were reaffirmed and the Japanese government accepted both these “contracts”. As such in accordance to the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Diaoyu Dao, as affiliated islands of Taiwan, should be returned, together with Taiwan, to China.

Now it becomes problematic !

No it became problematical in your first and second sentences. The above may be what the Chinese government puts about as their claim to the sovereignty of the Senkaku islands but its total fiction.

Japan’s claim to the Senkakus is independent of the Sino-China War and is based on Terra Nullis. The islands were incorporated into Japan before the Treaty of Shimonoseki and the transfer of Formosa (Taiwan) and associated islands. Further the Senkakus are not considered geographically part of Formosa so not associated islands. This was never disputed by China, either PRC or RoC, until the 1970s, including the geographic nature of the Senkakus as part of the Ryuku Islands.

These islands may have been on Chinese maps and the like going back to whenever but first discovery is not grounds for a claim to sovereignty under international law. One needs to be in active possession of the islands via occupation or practical control. Which is why Danzig was German. Because tens of thousands of Germans lived there.

Hmmm ... here's an interesting analysis ! ... and as such back to the topic please !

Japan and U.S. Ignored Chinese Signals and History, Blundering into the Senkaku/Diaoyu Crisis

Former students of Asian politics and international relations of a certain age (my age, or a bit older), would in college or graduate school have heard of, if not carefully read, China Crosses the Yalu: The Decision to Enter the Korean War, by Allen S. Whiting (1960). This was a seminal study of formal or–mainly–informal signals sent by China in 1950 warning with increasing clarity and vehemence the officially U.N. (but overwhelmingly U.S.) forces under command of Douglas MacArthur, then beating back North Korea invaders and advancing up the Korea peninsula, that China was prepared to and would intervene on behalf of North Korea if its territory or vital interests were threatened.
In the event, on October 25,1950, 25 days after U.N. forces had crossed the 38th parallel, 200,000 Chinese People’s Liberation Army (redesignated by Mao Zedong the People’s Volunteer Army) soldiers, having secretly crossed the Yalu River on October 19, attacked U.N. forces, beginning an engagement that would vastly increase casualties on both sides, but especially for the PLA. Whiting’s book sought to discern at what point China’s in many cases subtle and indirect warnings might have been heeded or responded so that intervention might have been avoided.
I have been reminded of China Crosses the Yalu as I have worked through the new book on the Senkaku/Diaoyu island crisis by Yabuki Susumu (矢吹晋), professor emeritus of Yokohama City University, one of Japan’s most eminent China scholars. The book (written in Japanese) is entitled:「尖閣問題の核心 」(The Core of the Senkaku Issue), and bears a subtitle:「日中関係はどうなる」 (What is to Become of Japan-China Relations). I believe that the book is the fairest and most objective, as well as the most thorough, exposition of the positions of both Japan and China, and–critically–the U.S., on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I think I can summarize Professor Yabuki’s analysis and conclusions as follows:
1. The Japanese position on the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue is indefensible on several counts, including most fundamentally Japan’s unconditional acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (which required the return of all territories “stolen” from China).
2. The Meiji government’s annexation of the Ryuku Islands (theretofore an autonomous kingdom) in January 1885, within which the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were identified, followed three months later by the Qing Dynasty’s surrender of Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (ending the Sino-Japanese War) are both mooted by the terms of Potsdam. The islands were and are clearly part of Taiwan, which in addition has the most legitimate claim to continuous use/occupation.
3. The Japanese position that Senkaku/Diaoyu is part of Japanese territory because it was awarded to Japan by the U.S. in the Okinawa Reversion agreement of 1971 is similarly contrary to fact. The U.S. awarded to Japan only administrative authority over the islands, not sovereignty. Sovereignty was specifically not transferred. The U.S. continued to maintain was undetermined between the three claimants and would only be determined through discussion and agreement. (As I noted in the last post, the Obama administration–in a monumental blunder–effectively changed this policy by failing to object to and stop Japanese “nationalization.”)
4. Japanese policy–and particularly public misunderstanding–has been based on the false assertion, uttered by then foreign minister Fukuda Takeo in testimony to the Upper House of Diet on December 15, 1971 that Okinawa Reversion had accomplished the restoration of Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Whether Fukuda misunderstood the issue, or intended to deliberately deceive the country through this testimony is unclear.
5. The Chinese position on handling the territorial issue was, before Japanese “nationalization,” grounded on the 1972 agreement between Prime Minister Tanaka Kakue-Premier Zhou Enlai, when the terms of Japan-China diplomatic relations were determined, to “shelve” the issue–i.e., to avoid any acts that sought to enforce one side’s claim to sovereignty.
6. Yabuki cites his own research and authoritative third party sources to charge that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs removed from official transcripts of the Tanaka-Zhou discussions that agreement to “shelve” the issue, allowing future Japanese governments to fraudulently claim that the issue was not discussed and that China asserted a claim over the islands.
7. Under the circumstances above, the decision of the Noda government to “nationalize” the islands was a grave provocation, a fundamental change in the status quo, tantamount from the Chinese point of view to aggression and forceful annexation of Chinese territory. An equivalently forceful Chinese response to “balance” the level of its sovereign claim was inevitable.
What has reminded me of Whiting’s study are the many signals sent by China since the beginning of the current crisis (which might be traced back to the fishing boat incidence in 2010). In December 2011 I posted on the humiliation meted out to PM Noda during a short, seemingly purposeless–and certainly fruitless–trip made to Beijing. Already, Japan-China relations had cooled to near freezing.
Professor Yabuki chronicles the many signals of trouble as Chinese concern over the direction of Japanese policy grew. These included the refusal of Hu Jintao in February in to meet a top level delegation of seven of Japan organizations’ heads in Beijing to commemorate the 40th anniversary of restoration of diplomatic relations. The last minute cancellations of a scheduled visit to Hu Deping, son of Japan’s last “sympathizer” in the Beijing leadership, Hu Yaobang, and a visit of China’s most senior uniformed military officer, Guo Boxiong, in May.
What concerns Yabuki most is that these signals, among many others, were hardly noticed or appreciated in Japan. Yet, they were leading to what became almost a complete breakdown in communications with China. The almost farcical, but deeply tragic, denouement of this breakdown was the “16 minute standing dialogue” between Hu Jintao and Noda held on the sidelines of the APEC conference in Vladivostok on September 9 at which each side delivered its ultimatum.
The Noda Cabinet decided the next day to implement nationalization and the following day paid the money and signed documentation. It is now very hard to believe that anyone expected Japan’s decision to have the effect of de-escalating the crisis. If anyone did they were making the same mistakes as Truman and MacArthur in 1950.

 

[sferrin]

This would all be true - if the US had the spine to stand by Japan. I'm not seeing it with this administration.

So far the US Administration has walked the walk and talked the talk:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/03/national/u-s-backs-japan-against-adiz-biden/
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/27/world/u-s-bombers-defy-chinese-air-zone/
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/24/national/u-s-vows-to-defend-japan-if-china-air-zone-sparks-crisis/

Ahem . . .
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/04/team_obama_changes_course_appears_to_accept_china_air_defense_zone

 

[Triton]

Ahem . . .
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/04/team_obama_changes_course_appears_to_accept_china_air_defense_zone

Yeah, just as I thought. The United States is unwilling to jeopardize economic interests in the People's Republic of China to support Japan in this territorial dispute. There is no doubt that the United States could blockade the People's Republic of China or institute sanctions, but is unwilling to take the economic hit.

 

[sublight_]

Top Obama administration and Pentagon officials signaled a willingness to temporarily accept China's new, controversial air defense identification zone on Wednesday. Those officials expressed disapproval for the way in which the Asian power has flexed its muscles, and cautioned China not to implement the zone. But they also carved out wiggle room in which the United States and China ultimately could find common ground on the issue, indicating that they may be willing to live with the zone for now -- as long as China backs off its demand that all aircraft traveling through it check in first.

"It wasn't the declaration of the ADIZ that actually was destabilizing," said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, America's highest-ranking military officer. "It was their assertion that they would cause all aircraft entering the ADIZ to report regardless of whether they were intending to enter into the sovereign airspace of China. And that is destabilizing."

That's a change from just a few days ago, when U.S. Vice President Joe Biden demanded that China take back its declaration of the zone. And it's another demonstration that China's recent decisions have forced the United States to tread carefully. On Wednesday, Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing for more than five hours, according to a senior administration official. In brief public remarks midway through the marathon session, Biden didn't mention the air defense zone at all.

Japan, a vital American ally, has expressed fury over the Chinese move and ordered its commercial airliners not to provide information about their flight paths to the Chinese military. By contrast, the United States made a point of flying a pair of B-52s through it last week, but seems to have accepted that China will keep the zone in place indefinitely. U.S. officials have shifted their focus instead on preventing a potential military clash between Japan and China.

In meetings in Beijing on Wednesday, Biden laid out the U.S. position in detail, reiterating that the United States does not recognize the new zone and has deep concerns about it, a senior administration official said. Biden told Xi that the United States wants China to take steps to lower tensions in the region, avoid enforcement actions that could lead to crisis, and to establish communication with Japan and other countries in the region to avoid altercations, the administration official added. Privately, Biden did not call for the air defense identification zone it to be rolled back -- something administration officials had done Monday while Biden was visiting Japan. Instead, the vice president asked the Chinese leader to be careful about how his country operated the zone going forward.

"He indicated to Xi that we are looking to China to take steps as we move forward to lower tensions, to avoid enforcement actions that could lead to crisis, and to establish channels of communication with Japan, but also with their other neighbors to avoid the risk of mistake, miscalculation, accident or escalation," the official told reporters in Beijing.

Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday that the United States does not recognize the zone and China "should not implement it." Administration officials said Biden's message reflects the White House's growing concerns that China's establishment of the air defense identification zone risks sparking a regional crisis. In the long term, the officials said, the United States wants China to eliminate the air defense entirely. With China already patrolling the zone with fighter jets, the officials said the White House was focused on preventing the growing tensions between Japan and China from getting worse. That includes temporary measures like pushing the two countries to establish a hotline designed to ensure that a miscommunication doesn't lead a clash between the two countries.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, took a measured approach. They said the major issue isn't the creation of the zone itself, but the way China has handled it and the country's demand that aircraft entering the zone share their flight plans.

"It's not that the ADIZ itself is new or unique," Hagel said. "Our biggest concern is how it was done so unilaterally and so immediately without any consultation, or international consultation. That's not a wise course of action to take for any country."

Dempsey expanded on that, saying that the ADIZ the Chinese established isn't their sovereign airspace, but international airspace adjacent to it. The international norm for such an area, Dempsey said, is for aircraft to check in with the country declaring an ADIZ only if it intends to enter sovereign airspace afterward. Many other countries, including the United States, also have ADIZ areas established.

The remarks open the possibility that if China backs off its demand that all aircraft in the ADIZ share their flight plans, the United States could lighten up on China establishing a zone. That's unlikely to please Japan, however.

Hagel indirectly addressed that Wednesday. Despite calling China's rollout of the air-defense zone unwise, he also stressed the United States' growing relationship with the Chinese military. He advocated for the preservation of security and free shipping lanes for all players in the region, and sent a message to other U.S. allies in the region -- including Japan.

"It's important for China, Japan, South Korea, all the nations in this area to stay calm and responsible," he said. "These are combustible issues."

 

[Orionblamblam]

Hitler was a fascist, Stalin and Mao at least nominally Communist. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Fascism and communisim are right next to each other on the political spectrum. Both are highly collectivist ideologies. Both exalt the State over the individual. The only real difference is that fascism permits *some* private ownership of factories and companies and such... so long as the private owners make what the State tells them to make and sells at the price the State tells them to sell at.

Fascism and communism are way over at one end of the spectrum, with libertarianism/minarchism/etc. at the other.

As for your inability to fathom Mao's political goals,

What's hard to fathom about "power?"

 

[Orionblamblam]

Top Obama administration and Pentagon officials signaled a willingness to temporarily accept China's new, controversial air defense identification zone ...

This administration caving in? Who woulda believed it? But hey, it's a valid strategy. Been done many times before. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Triton]

After all, what's good for Walmart is good for the country.

 

[Rickshaw]

Are you really this politically naive? Hitler was a fascist, Stalin and Mao at least nominally Communist. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Oh please, with the exception of the body count there is hardly a cigarette paper between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's Socialism in One Country.

There were fundamental differences between their ideologies and therefore their motivations. Perhaps the most important was private ownership of the means of production. This is first year political theory.

 

[Rickshaw]

Hitler was a fascist, Stalin and Mao at least nominally Communist. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Fascism and communisim are right next to each other on the political spectrum. Both are highly collectivist ideologies. Both exalt the State over the individual. The only real difference is that fascism permits *some* private ownership of factories and companies and such... so long as the private owners make what the State tells them to make and sells at the price the State tells them to sell at.

I have noticed before your rather bizarre views on political theory. Only on your political spectrum could you place Communism and Fascism side by side. Even since the inception of the political spectrum during the French Revolution in the National Assembly, progressives have been on the left and conservatives on the right. Fascism is considered by most political philosophers a right wing philosophy based on its social and economic policies, whereas Communism has been considered a left wing one again because of its social and economic policies. Only someone who subscribes to the Libertarianism could perhaps come to the conclusions that you do.

Allowing private ownership of the means of production under fascism is perhaps the most important and greatest point of difference between it and Communism. While you might, looking at them through your rather tinted Libertarianist lenses be unable to see any differentiation other people can. This webpage might be able to help you educate yourself

As for your inability to fathom Mao's political goals,

What's hard to fathom about "power?"

You appear to have problems with it considering your characterisation of Mao's and today's Chinese leadership's motivations.

Your remind me of Tom Clancy with his thinly veiled racism and his characterisation of the Chinese as "Klingons". Those who won't make the effort to understand other cultures and societies will obvious always attempt to dehumanise them. It's just easier for them.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Allowing private ownership of the means of production under fascism is perhaps the most important and greatest point of difference between it and Communism.

Indeed so. And while democracies, republics, and whatnot that operate under capitalist systems allow the private ownership of the means of production, fascism scoots to the left as it allows private ownership... but State Control. It's curious that you seem oblivious to that. Fascism is a step towards the left... *far* to the left in that regard.

Those who won't make the effort to understand other cultures and societies will obvious always attempt to dehumanise them. It's just easier for them.

Or they will fall back on inadequate definitions of political ideologies, without actually tryign to understand them. Thus you have people who think that fascism is right wing because... why? Because fascists didn't like regulations? Fascsts liked small government? Fascists wanted minimum control over peoples lives? Nope. In most of the ways that matter, fascism is far to the left and *right* *next* *to* communism. When the Italian fascists first started up 90 or so years ago, fascism was clearly seen as, and publicly called, a left-wing ideology due to the policies that it actually supported. It went three quarters of the way to outright communism, only letting people keep businesses. So long as those businesses did what the government told them to do.

But heck. Let's let the Nazi party platform of 1933 tell the tale (http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5701):

<blockquote>

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.​

</blockquote>

Translation: the “idle rich” are banned.​

<blockquote>We therefore demand:
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.</blockquote> Translation: no more earning interest on investments.
<blockquote>Breaking the Servitude of Interest.
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.
19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.
20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.
The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of:
Public Interest before Private Interest.
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.
</blockquote>Anyone who thinks these are the polices of the right wing today is something of a dimwit.

Now, can we *please* get back on topic without any more of your ignorant dribble?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hmmm ... here's an interesting analysis ! ... and as such back to the topic please !

It is the topic. You know the dispute over the Senkaku islands. Otherwise Kadija/Rickshaw would be right when he mused he didn’t understand what all the fuss over the ADIZ was about.

Thanks for quoting the Chinese propaganda position back at us. Everyone else in the world is happy with Japanese sovereignty over the Ryuku islands. The extended American occupation of the Ryukus may muddy the waters somewhat but regardless the islands are clearly Japanese. The Senkaku islands are also clearly part of the Ryukus geographically and since 1885 politically.

 

[Rickshaw]

Allowing private ownership of the means of production under fascism is perhaps the most important and greatest point of difference between it and Communism.

Indeed so. And while democracies, republics, and whatnot that operate under capitalist systems allow the private ownership of the means of production, fascism scoots to the left as it allows private ownership... but State Control. It's curious that you seem oblivious to that. Fascism is a step towards the left... *far* to the left in that regard.

Yet every political philosopher other than you, identifies them as a right wing political movement. That includes most Europeans who you'd think would have first hand experience of their policies and beliefs.

Those who won't make the effort to understand other cultures and societies will obvious always attempt to dehumanise them. It's just easier for them.

Or they will fall back on inadequate definitions of political ideologies, without actually tryign to understand them.

Again, I point out your views are at variance with every noted political philosopher of the late 20th century.

There is only one place that I'm aware of that characterises Communism as a movement of the right and that is post-Soviet Russia, where incidently, they characterise Capitalism and free-market views as being of the left!.

So, you want to quote the 1933 political manifesto of the Nazis? Perhaps it might be better to look at what the Nazis actually did, rather than the empty promises they made to the voters?

From the webpage I pointed you to earlier:

What is Communism and Fascism? Communism is a system or a theory of social organizations where the holding of all property is common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state.
Fascism is a system where the government is led by a dictator. The dictator has complete authority and forcibly oppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism.
Philosophy Communists believe that a utopian (perfect) society can be achieved if, and only if, the proletariat (or working classes) overthrow the capitalist system in a social-revolution, usually using armed rebellion. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.
Fascism is based around the glory of the nation state. Fascists believe that constant conquest of other nations is necessary to uphold this glory. Fascist parties and movements in various countries differed significantly from each other. But they also had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, opposition to parliamentary democracy, conservative economic policy that favored the wealthy, contempt for political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.
Social Structure and Class Hierarchies Communists inspired by Karl Marx believe class hierarchies must be abolished by the state seizing control of private property and industry, thereby abolishing the capitalist class. Oh the other hand, fascists believed in a rigid class hierarchy, especially rule by an elite, and were opposed to socialist movements. Fascism upholds a strict class structure, ensuring that every member of society has a specific, unchangeable role. Often in fascist societies a certain racial group is considered superior and national and ethnic unity is encouraged at the expense of individuality. For example, Hitler's fascist regime glorified the Aryan race and called for the extermination of Jews during World War II.
Political System Both fascism and communism are against the democratic process but with some differences. Fascism looks down upon parliamentary democracy. Fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini participated in electoral politics before coming to power. But after seizing power, fascist leaders tended to abolish political parties, oppose universal suffrage and became dictators and rulers for life.
In a communist system, there is rule -- in theory -- by a single party. Democracy was to be practiced only within the party, constrained by the policy of democratic centralism i.e. full and vigorous debate would lead to a decision that would determine the party’s “line” on an issue, whereupon the party’s central leadership would close off debate and require adherence to the party line. In short, the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat had to be a dictatorship of the communist party in the name of the proletariat.
Economic System Communism is based on the equal distribution of wealth. The tenet of Marxian communism was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Everyone in society receives an equal share of the benefits derived from labor, e.g. food and money. In order to ensure that everyone receives an equal amount, all means of production are controlled by the state.
Fascism allows for private enterprise, but its economic system is focused entirely on strengthening and glorifying the state. Both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany aimed for self-sufficiency, so that each country could survive entirely without trade with other nations. See Fascist corporatism
Individual Rights In both communism and fascism, individual choice or preference matter less than society as a whole. In communism, religion and private property are both abolished, the government controls all labor and wealth, and individual choices such as job or education are dictated by the government. While private property is permitted in fascism, most other choices are also controlled to increase the strength of the State.

And I don't quote my own blog, either. :
If, BTW, you find that argument a little too hard to follow, perhaps you should try:

Or this one:

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yet every political philosopher other than you, identifies them as a right wing political movement.

I will simply point out that you've made no effort to refute the facts. You just Appeal To Authority.

The "spectrum graphs" you posted are amusing in their wackiness. No effort on you part was expended on explaining *why* fascism, which has *all* the hallmarks of big-government leftism, is somehow magically small-government rightwingism.

This one is better, and more accurate:

And if you want to focus on what the Nazis did, rather than what they said? Fine:
1) They were huge-government
2) They bundled their population into one collective
3) Everything they did was for The State.

There ya go. Leftism in a nutshell.

 

[Deino]

Hmmm ... here's an interesting analysis ! ... and as such back to the topic please !

It is the topic. You know the dispute over the Senkaku islands. Otherwise Kadija/Rickshaw would be right when he mused he didn’t understand what all the fuss over the ADIZ was about.

Thanks for quoting the Chinese propaganda position back at us. Everyone else in the world is happy with Japanese sovereignty over the Ryuku islands. The extended American occupation of the Ryukus may muddy the waters somewhat but regardless the islands are clearly Japanese. The Senkaku islands are also clearly part of the Ryukus geographically and since 1885 politically.

Sorry but first of all in the same way You say I repeat only the Chinese propaganda can anyone else say You are only repeating the Japanese point of view ! As such no discussion is possible and even more when I look at the other posts in this tread I ask if on this topic is a normal discussion possible in any way here in THIS forum ... at least I have my daubts.

Seems as if here are too many which seem to take their own opinion for granted, they generalise and all this mixed up by the fear for this evel empire behind the great wall ! .... anyone who would care to look about the real background, anyone care to real discussion ... seems as if this topic has reached Keypublishing level.

By the way "Everyone else in the world is happy with Japanese sovereignty over the Ryuku islands" is another thing to debate. If You understand "everyone" in the meaning of "everyone in Japan" You might be correct, but surely not 1.351 Billion Chinese and I would include some others which also have territorial issues with Japan too.

Deino

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think the one thing that everyone will agree on is the fact that, yet again, the current US administration has thrown it's allies under the bus. Along with whatever credibility the supporters of the post-war Japanese constitution (especially Article Nine) had left.

 

[sublight_]

This was Shanghai this morning. No, that is not fog. It will be hard to enforce your new Air Defense zone if your military forces all have cancer.....

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yes, but on the other hand, a generation raised in that toxic soup will, if they survive, grow up to be unstoppable killing machines, just with a bit of a cough. And a collection of captured light sabers.


Also: on one side, we have nations like American and Japan whose people demand and will accept nothing less than perfectly clean conditions; on the other hand... this. Guess which condition breeds toughness.

 

[sferrin]

Guess which condition breeds toughness.

And has more money left for useful things.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry but first of all in the same way You say I repeat only the Chinese propaganda can anyone else say You are only repeating the Japanese point of view !

Sorry Deino but there is a big difference. What you call the Japanese point of view is the objective recorded history. The Chinese position avoids a few specific facts in order to create its narrative. Facts like the actual process Japan used to acquire the Senkakus in the first place. And the specific identification of the Senakakus as part of the Ryukus and therefore Japanese in the WWII surrender process.

The Chinese also gloss over their own complete acceptance of this position until the 1970s. They make ridiculous claims that because they were weak or left out of the San Francisco Treaty meant they couldn’t object to the Senkakus staying Japanese. What nonsense. China could easily object at any time over these 30 off years by simply printing an objection in one of their newspapers or sending a letter to Japan or the USA. But they didn’t.

Truth is objective based on factual evidence not subjective to the whims of 1.3 billion Chinese or whatever.

 

[Orionblamblam]

If nothing else, the laws of Adverse Possession would seem relevant. Typically, if you occupy someone elses property for 21 years, openly and without them making an effort to evict you... the land becomes *yours,* legally. How long did China go without complaining about these rocks while they were occupied by others?

 

[Deino]

Strangely, there are even some in the US, who seem to take a wider view ...

China’s East China Sea ADIZ: Framing Japan to Help Washington Understand Publication:
China Brief Volume: 13 Issue: 24 December 5, 2013 04:04 PM Age: 3 days By: Peter Mattis

On November 23, Beijing announced that a new Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) would go into effect over the East China Sea, overlapping existing Japanese and South Korean ADIZ, requiring all air traffic passing through the zone to file flight information irrespective of its destination. Despite eliciting strong responses from Tokyo and Washington as well as restrained but negative responses from Seoul, Taipei and Canberra, China claimed the ADIZ was a routine measure for improving awareness of its airspace and protecting its national security without any ulterior motive (China Daily, November 30; PLA Daily, November 27; Xinhua, November 25; Yonhap News, November 25, Xinhua, November 23). Maintaining an ADIZ is a relatively common practice, but Beijing’s justification for the new zone rested explicitly on its disputed claim over the Diaoyu (or Senkaku) Islands (Xinhua, November 25). From the beginning, Beijing has appeared prepared to address specific foreign concerns, manage diplomatic backlash, and coordinate the launching and publicizing of air patrols. This suggests a deliberate action, even if the reasons for why now remain mysterious. The ways in which Beijing described the ADIZ’s establishment indicates China has used this opportunity not only to reinforce its claim on the Diaoyu Islands, but also to drive a wedge between Japan and the United States.

The Execution of Policy, Not the Incitement of Crisis

One of the most notable features of China’s presentation of the ADIZ and its policies is the absence of crisis language. As Paul Godwin and Alice Miller have chronicled, Beijing makes steadily escalating statements prior to using military force—a feature noted in China’s wars since 1949. [1] The principle mouthpieces of the party, while refuting Japanese and U.S. protestations, have remained relatively tame in their language. Only one statement in an institutional, unsigned editorial in the military’s paper evoked this kind of warning: We especially hope that some individual countries will give up their pride and prejudice. They shouldn’t be blinded by their own selfishness so as to underestimate the Chinese people and the Chinese military’s resolute determination to safeguard China’s national sovereignty and security as well as the regional peace and stability” (PLA Daily, November 25).In addition to the absence of crisis language from authoritative outlets, the ADIZ story was not initially played up in China media web portals and required deliberate interest in defense news to find. This further demonstrates China’s effort to present the formation of the ADIZ in a low-key manner.

Indeed, Beijing’s entire presentation of the ADIZ focuses on establishing China’s action as normal and legal as well as expressing China’s concern for peace. Institutional and expert commentaries in the days that followed the announcement were filled with annotations such as “having no intention to generate tensions,” “a move of justice to safeguard regional peace and stability” and the assertion the ADIZ “cannot be described as a threat to another country” (China Military Online, November 28; Xinhua, November 25; PLA Daily, November 25). The hawkish defense commentator Luo Yuan and National Defense University professor Meng Xiangqing even suggested the ADIZ, in the words of the latter, “will in fact bring more security for aircraft flying over the East China Sea. The zone will help reduce military misjudgment”—a position reiterated by the defense ministry this week (Xinhua, December 3; China-US Focus, November 27; Xinhua, November 26).

Four indicators strongly suggest the declaration of the ADIZ was a well-planned policy action that was coordinated across the government, or least among senior policymakers. Although China may be getting vastly better at crisis management and getting its message out, these indicators buttress the hypothesis that the ADIZ was deliberate, considered policy:

• Xinhua announced the ADIZ as a “Statement by the Government of the People's Republic of China,” which is relatively rare and suggests a policy coordinated at the highest levels—the Politburo Standing Committee and possibly the Central Military Commission (Xinhua, November 23).
• Chinese diplomats in at least three countries—the United States, Japan and Australia—had prepared talking points to downplay the implications of the ADIZ as well as any suggestion that it affected the sovereignty disputes in the East China Sea (Xinhua, November 26; Xinhua, November 25; The Australian, November 25; South China Morning Post, November 25).
• A variety of Chinese military and legal experts across the PLA’s different institutions were prepared to discuss the ADIZ, its implications as well as its consistency with domestic and international law and treaty commitments. In addition to the Ministry of National Defense spokesmen, Beijing presented comments from the PLA Air Force, the PLA Navy and National Defense University as well as their affiliated education establishments (Xinhua, November 26; People’s Daily, November 24; Xinhua, November 24; Xinhua, November 23).
• Shortly after announcement of the ADIZ, Beijing dispatched and publicized its first aerial patrol of the newly-designated zone (People’s Daily, November 24; Xinhua, November 24).

Framing Tokyo for Washington’s Benefit

The careful control of the ADIZ presentation indicates that China’s story has a calculated message for a targeted audience. Although Beijing is demonstrating once again that the Diaoyu Islands are, in fact, disputed, the main messaging appears directed at Washington and its commitment to Japan. In many respects, the U.S.-Japan alliance and the basing of U.S. military forces is one of the keys to the military aspects of Washington’s “rebalancing toward Asia”—a feature recognized as such by Chinese analysts (PLA Daily, February 2; Dang Jian, January 18).
China’s propaganda presentation contains three themes relevant to the United States and aimed at driving a wedge between it and Japan. Although none of these are necessarily new, the ADIZ declaration offered an opportunity to use them within the context of an emerging crisis:

• Japan, not China, is the threat to regional peace and stability
• Washington is failing to live up to its commitments in the post-World War II world
• Tokyo is dragging the United States toward conflict

Japan, not China, is the Threat to Regional Peace and Stability:

Consistent with its past conflicts, Beijing has painted its actions as defensive and the internationally-recognized, appropriate reaction to the provocation of Japan’s military activities on its periphery (PLA Daily, November 27). Tokyo rather than Beijing, especially because of the government’s purchase of Diaoyu Islands last year, is portrayed as the real threat to the status quo and regional stability. MND spokesman Yang Yujun stated “Facts have proven that it is Japan who has been creating tense situations” or, as one unsigned editorial put it, “[Washington] should pin the blame on the real offender for changing the status quo in the East China Sea and undermining regional peace and stability” (Xinhua, November 25). In Beijing’s telling, the situation is only going to get worse as the return of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe presages a more firm Japanese policy—a process already begun. One of the institutional editorials protesting China’s innocence noted “Abe has taken a series of worrisome actions, including increasing Japan's military budget for the first time in 11 years, staging more military exercises and even openly announcing the intention to revise Japan's pacifist constitution” (Xinhua, November 25).

Washington is Failing to Live Up to Its Commitments in the Post-World War II World:

China has attempted to frame controlling Japan (and restraining its militarism) as part of the U.S. post-World War II international system. An unsigned Xinhua editorial stated Tokyo “has also rejected and challenged the outcomes of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War” (Xinhua, November 25). MND spokesman Yang added “Japan also boosted its military capacity under various disguises, attempting to change the post-World War II international order” (Xinhua, November 29). One article appearing on a Central Party School-run news portal before the ADIZ announcement even equated Washington’s tolerance of rising Japanese militarism with appeasing Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II—something that provides an immediate palliative at the expense of long-term stability (Seeking Truth Online, October 23).
Beyond the issue of Japanese militarism, the 70th anniversary of the Cairo Declaration this month offered the opportunity to invoke the Allies’ commitment to restoring Chinese territories lost to Japan. The declaration stated “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and Pescadores,” which was later reaffirmed by the Potsdam Declaration in 1945. China’s current interpretation is that this includes the Diaoyu, so “in international law, the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have been returned to China since then” (Xinhua, December 1; Xinhua, November 25).

The other, more current, U.S. failure relates to China’s assessment that Washington has acted in bad faith over its commitment to not take a position on the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. The official statements reacting to the ADIZ delivered by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel along with the B-52 flights suggest, at least to Chinese analysts, that Washington already has taken a clear stand against China. As Su Xiaohui, a researcher at the MFA-run China Institute for International Studies, wrote, “[the United States] even pretended to have forgotten its consistent claim of holding no positions in the issue of the Diaoyu Islands while making stress on its obligation to its allied country” and reiterated its treaty commitment to help Japan defend the islands (People’s Daily Overseas Edition, November 28).

Tokyo is Dragging the United States toward Conflict:

The official Chinese press have castigated Washington’s responses to the establishment of the ADIZ, suggesting that the United States is emboldening an increasingly militaristic Japan and moving Beijing and Washington closer to conflict. Xinhua opined that “The U.S. overreaction has bolstered Japan intentionally or unintentionally,” allowing Tokyo to malignly influence U.S.-China relations (Xinhua, November 27). According to an English-language editorial, “Washington’s ‘message’ will only add fuel to Tokyo's dangerous belligerence and further eliminate room for diplomatic maneuvers. More importantly, it may put China and [the United States] on a collision course” (China Daily, November 28). Elsewhere, Xinhua warned the United States that “keeping a blind eye to the dangerous tendency in Japan could prove to be risky and might even jeopardize the U.S. national interests” (Xinhua, November 25).
This theme raises the hope that, should Washington not support Japan, Sino-American competition and/or conflict may be averted. An editorial in the English-language China Daily addressed this directly: “The ‘more collaborative and less confrontational future in the Pacific’ [Kerry] envisages rests more on Japan being sensible and peaceful” (China Daily, November 26). A Japan not confident of U.S. support, according to the Chinese media, would be less prone to militarism and more likely to deal fairly with China over the future of the Diaoyu Islands.

Conclusion

At this early date, there seem to be few clear conclusions about Beijing’s intensions in announcing an ADIZ. First, there seems little doubt that this was a coordinated policy that was executed at a time of Beijing’s choosing. It is not a policy free-for-all, but rather another calculated step that reinforces Chinese territorial claims and cannot be easily turned back, as the White House’s recommendation for U.S. commercial airlines to abide by China’s ADIZ regulations recognizes. Second, the way in which China has framed the issue suggests a deliberate effort to convince the United States that its interests are not aligned with Japan’s. The U.S.-Japan alliance is key to the U.S. rebalancing toward Asia, and many Chinese analysts have long seen this policy as little more than a prelude to—or a façade for—containment, or at least as destabilizing East Asia (Xinhua, November 26; “Pivot and Parry: China's Response to America's New Defense Strategy,” China Brief, March 15, 2012).
Beijing’s arguments rely on Washington’s privileging Sino-U.S. cooperation on a range of global issues above other commitments. As it has been presented, Japan appears to join a set of issues—including Taiwan and export controls—that Beijing claims inhibit progress in the Sino-American relationship. The framework that Beijing has put forward for reconciling problems in U.S.-China Relations—the “New Type of Great Power Relations” or “New Model of Relations among Major Countries” (xinxing daguo guanxi)—reinforces this kind of thinking, because it speaks to the long-held hope of a partnership and avoiding the pessimistic repetition of great power conflict (“Chinese Dreams: An Ideological Bulwark, Not a Framework for Sino-American Relations,” China Brief, June 7; “China’s Search for a ‘New Type of Great Power Relationship’,” China Brief, September 7, 2012). Yet, Beijing’s behavior in the South and East China Seas suggests this hope will come at the cost of acceding to Chinese pressure on the international system. Thus, the choice is not between U.S. relations with China or countries on its periphery, but rather between a partnership with China and preserving the international system Washington created.

via: http://www.jamestown.org/chinabrief/

 

[starviking]

Strangely, there are even some in the US, who seem to take a wider view ...

Framing Tokyo for Washington’s Benefit

Consistent with its past conflicts, Beijing has painted its actions as defensive and the internationally-recognized, appropriate reaction to the provocation of Japan’s military activities on its periphery (PLA Daily, November 27). Tokyo rather than Beijing, especially because of the government’s purchase of Diaoyu Islands last year, is portrayed as the real threat to the status quo and regional stability. MND spokesman Yang Yujun stated “Facts have proven that it is Japan who has been creating tense situations"

via: http://www.jamestown.org/chinabrief/

And strangely enough no mention is made of the reason why the Japanese Govt. nationalised the Senkakus: the ultra-nationalist Tokyo Mayor, Shintaro Ishihara, had raised a fund to purchase most of the islands from their Japanese owner. Ishihara was going to build on the islands, making the need for an official Japanese government presence on the islands a virtual necessity. The only way they could prevent this was by buying the islands themselves. I guess framing the discussion entails leaving out vital information.

 

[Deino]

Again that does not mean the situation around the Island is "not disputed" !

Otherwise I simply posted a link from Jamestown, which IMO describes quite wll / ballanced the CHinese point of view ... what again does not mean or exludes the Japanese side, which is surely both remembering and mentioning each and every detail in that discussion.

Anyway an interesting map showing now all three overlapping ADIZs !

 

[Orionblamblam]

Again that does not mean the situation around the Island is "not disputed" !

If the President of the US declared that Shanghai was sovereign US territory, would that mean that the territorial status of Shanghai is "disputed?"

 

[Triton]

The article posted by Deino written by Peter Mattis reinforces the point I was making. There has been discussion in some circles that the United States should abrogate its Cold War era mutual defense treaties. Proponents argue that United States interests are not at stake in territorial disputes between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, between China and the Philippines over Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal/and other islands in the Spratlys, and the situation between North and South Korea.

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2013/07/30/for-stability-in-east-asia-u-s-should-abrogate-cold-war-era-mutual-defense-treaties/

This situation also begs the question will Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) revise Japan's post war constitution, specifically Article Nine, or to ignore it? The Wall Street Journal reported on May 5, 2013 that most Japanese wanted change to Japan's post-war charter.

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323372504578464622440869226

Will we see an increasing military build-up in Japan if it doubts the United States' resolve in honoring the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan or it believes that the United States is not standing behind Japan in defense of Japan's interests?

 

[Triton]

I think the one thing that everyone will agree on is the fact that, yet again, the current US administration has thrown it's allies under the bus. Along with whatever credibility the supporters of the post-war Japanese constitution (especially Article Nine) had left.

I believe that a Romney Administration would have made similar decisions. Does a United States administration really want to jeopardize the trade and investment relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China?

 

[Orionblamblam]

. Does a United States administration really want to jeopardize the trade and investment relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China?

If the President wants to think long-term? Then, yes. If China starts throwing its weight around, the US has a few options. One option is to piss and moan but otherwise do nothing in the hopes of preserving trade. Long-term, that results in an increasingly belligerent and powerful China and an increasingly weak US. Not good. The alternative is to smack 'em down *now,* and potentially preclude the need for future all-out war, or all-out economic capitulation.

Weakness is *never* a virtue.

 

[Triton]

"China expresses regret over South Korea air defense zone"

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/china-expresses-regret-over-south-korea-air-defense-101621489--sector.html

Reuters
10 hours ago

BEIJING (Reuters) - China expressed "regret" on Monday that South Korea had extended its air defense zone to partially overlap with a similar zone declared by Beijing two weeks ago that has raised regional tensions.
Related Stories

China says SKorea's expanded air zone regrettable Associated Press
South Korea expands air defense zone to partially overlap China's Reuters
SKorea announces expanded air defense zone Associated Press
SKorea expands air defense zone after Chinese move Associated Press
South Korea to make announcement on air zone; expansion is anticipated Reuters

China's declaration of an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea that includes islands at the heart of a territorial dispute with Japan has triggered protests from the United States and its close allies Japan and South Korea.

South Korea said on Sunday that its move to expand its own zone would not infringe on neighboring countries' sovereignty.

"China expresses regret over South Korea's expansion of its air defense identification zone," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters at a regular press briefing.

China had immediately conveyed its concerns to South Korea and requested that Seoul handles the matter "safely and cautiously", Hong said.

Hong said the zones, which overlap in an area that includes a submerged reef, called the Suyan Rock by China and Ieodo by South Korea, did not constitute territorial airspace.

"There currently does not exist a territorial dispute between China and South Korea on this issue," Hong said, but noted that the reef was situated in portions of both countries' exclusive economic zones.

"This can only be resolved through maritime negotiations," Hong said of the economic zone issue, which puts at stake rights to potential underwater oil and gas reserves.

South Korea objected to China's November 23 move as unacceptable because of the reef, which has a research station platform built atop it and is controlled by Seoul.

Under the Chinese zone's rules, all aircraft have to report flight plans to Chinese authorities, maintain radio contact and reply promptly to identification inquiries.

The extension of South Korea's zone, which was originally established by the U.S. Air Force in 1951 during the Korean War, will not apply any restrictions to the operation of commercial flights when it takes effect on December 15.

(Reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Alex Richardson)

 

[Madoc]

The difference between Communism and Fascism is that there's no profit in Communism.

This, both figuratively and literally.

Both ideologies sprung from Socialism and both took basic Socialist principles and ideology to the extremes. Their creators were all devout and ardent Socialists to begin with. If you look at the political platforms of both the Fascists in Italy and the National Socialist in Germany, they were pretty doctrinaire and bog standard Socialist diatribes. State ownership of this, State control of that, State control of national culture, State providing cradle to grave welfare for the Volk, etc., etc.,.

That the "Industrialists" signed on to the national socialist movements is no big surprise. When faced with a choice between one radical political movement which wants to control your business - but will allow you to keep any of its profit - versus the other radical political movement which wants to control your business - while sending you on one way train rides to Siberia / hanging you from the nearest lampost - the choice was rather clear. Also, whether they're "Industrialists" or "Big Business" they all do love government regulation.

Such regulation crushes the little guys who are their most effective competitors and such regulation / control is easy enough for the big companies to subvert and direct to their own ends. This, being a point still lost on those of the Left who keep calling for more government regulation of Big Business.

A lot of people view Fascism / Nazism as being a right wing ideology since it was authoritarian and totalitarian. But, so to was Communism. It has been one of the better sales jobs of the Left to get folks to think that the Fascists and Nazis were things of the Right and not the Left. Having to bear responsibility for BOTH of the most murderous ideologies in human history would tend to dampen the appeal of Leftist thought and politics.

 

[F-14D]

I believe that a Romney Administration would have made similar decisions. Does a United States administration really want to jeopardize the trade and investment relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China?

...and if the world starts to believe that the US will stand with an ally unless doing so might be uncomfortable or might damage a trade and investment relationship? What values is it then to stand with the US? Watch the greatest shift of power and influence the world has seen since WWII happen real fast.