I Guess This Is How Diplomacy Works
The Washington Times is reporting today on a November meeting between our Pacific Fleet commander, ADM Roughead, and Chinese military officials soon after a Chinese Song-class diesel submarine surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk. As near as I can tell, the Chinese were surprised to be asked about it, and responded in a quite... interesting way. Excerpts:
The Chinese responded by claiming the Song-class submarine that surfaced near the USS Kitty Hawk on Oct. 27 was there by accident, and that it did not shadow the warship before making its presence known, the officials said.The story goes on to say the Chinese are against entering into an INCSEA agreement with the U.S., similar to what we had with the Soviets. I expect that this was just a face-saving measure for them, and they'll enventually see that having such an agreement is in their best interest. The fact that the Chinese couldn't seem to agree on a party line indicates to me that there might be a division within the military on the advisability of a more "aggressive" naval posture. It also confirms my suspicion that the submarine didn't intend to surface -- they just screwed up. After all, the Chinese lied about everything else; why tell the truth about "deliberately" surfacing?
Defense officials familiar with reports of closed-door military meetings in Beijing, Shanghai and Zhanjiang privately doubted the Chinese explanations and said it is more likely the Song-class diesel electric submarine was practicing anti-aircraft carrier operations...
... The Chinese told Adm. Roughead that it was a "chance encounter" and that China's military had no intention of stalking the Kitty Hawk. They also said the submarine surfaced deliberately to demonstrate that it had no hostile intent, the officials said.
"The Chinese also claimed they did not want the U.S. Navy to mistake the vessel for a submarine from Taiwan or Korea," one official said. China has a large fleet of submarines that seldom operates so far from China's coast, such as the deep-ocean encounter near Okinawa.
Another explanation from the Chinese military officials was that the submarine surfaced because officials were worried that being detected so close to the carrier would lead to a confrontation.
posted by Bubblehead at 12:18 AM
8 Comments:
dear Bubblehead:
any sane reader of current events can only conclude that while the Chinese (may) have problems with the art of diplomacy, the United States government doesn't understand the meaning of the word - diplomacy
when i heard Condi Rice criticize China for it's increase in military spending, i had to take an extra dose of my anti-B.S. medication. example - [http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/060316_joint_press_conference.html]
anyway, the real issue that your post and the anti-China writer, Bill Gertz, have not honed in on is the fact that a Chinese sub was able to sneak up on our fleet carrier
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/11/2007 8:35 AM
The Chinese mentality that was demonstrated by their wildly unsuccessful "bumping" of the U.S. EP-3 in April 2001 appears to remain intact.
They take the long view, and in the long view they see conflict, and are obviously practicing for it. Would have to be pretty dim not to recognize that.
1/11/2007 9:43 AM
DoubleStandard, as a Johnny-come-lately to this topic you must not have read previous posts addressing our concern about the proximity of the Song to the Shitty Kitty. But it appears you want to use this forum to bash the Bush administration anyway. There might be other medication you should be taking.
1/11/2007 3:17 PM
dear trickish knave:
i did read the previous post and i even submitted a comment
but, today's post was about diplomacy (or the lack thereof)
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/11/2007 4:15 PM
DdoubleSstandard,
So China's position on Taiwan doesn't worry you?
The fact that they can't seem to realize that it's an independent country and a liberal democracy? (Kind of reminds me of Israel and various nutty neighbours.)
Personally I think it would be a tragedy if China invaded and/or destroyed this bastion of freedom and imposed their domestic brand of oppression. You don't think that's a diplomatic problem?
You go on to claim that the US doesn't understand the meaning of "diplomacy", yet this very post discusses a high level meeting with the Chinese. How can you square those two things?
If I were you I'd be much more worried about an oppressive, militaristic country (China) with a history of annexing its peaceful neighbors violently (e.g. Tibet) acting in an aggressive manner (e.g. towards Taiwan) than I would with the US. My country recently signed a "free trade agreement" with the US which I am strongly against. But, you can't say that there was no diplomacy involved. In fact the US consistently gets what it wants peacefully from semi-reasonable partners (e.g. this free trade agreement). Is that diplomacy, or not?
1/12/2007 1:46 AM
dear NICHOLAS:
your thoughtful and inquisitive post deserves a reply
nicholas - "So China's position on Taiwan doesn't worry you?"
theDdoubleSstandard - i am not quite sure of what you meant when you used the word "worry".
nicholas - "Personally I think it would be a tragedy if China invaded and/or destroyed this bastion of freedom and imposed their domestic brand of oppression. You don't think that's a diplomatic problem?
theDdoubleSstandard - it should "worry" us whenever any country gets invaded. but, it's interesting to note that for years China could've (militarily)attacked Taiwan but it hasn't.
nicholas - "You go on to claim that the US doesn't understand the meaning of "diplomacy", yet this very post discusses a high level meeting with the Chinese. How can you square those two things?"
theDdoubleSstandard - none of us were at the meeting between the Chinese and US military. so, none of us can accurately comment on those diplomatic maneuvers. but, we can comment on another China-US meeting. Recently, the US government(via Tres. Sec and others) demanded that the Chinese de-ink their Chinese currency from the US dollar and allow it to float freely. unfortunately this attitude symbolizes the American definition of "diplomacy". we shouldn't confuse diplomatic policy with a "demand or else" policy
nicholas - "If I were you I'd be much more worried about an oppressive, militaristic country (China) with a history of annexing its peaceful neighbors violently (e.g. Tibet) acting in an aggressive manner (e.g. towards Taiwan) than I would with the US"
theDdoubleSstandard - i challenge anyone to make a list of the country's China has invaded (this shouldn't take too long) and then make a list of country's the USA has invaded (might as well keep the library open late) and then tell me which country is more "oppresive", "mlitaristic", etc.
but, even if my above comments are wrong (NOT!), i doubt if the US can do anything to stop China from attacking Taiwan. BTW - a slow invasion is already in process and it's only a matter of time until China gets it back.
theDdoubleSstandard
1/12/2007 6:00 AM
dear Bubblehead:
my last comment (hopefully) on this isssue is a cut-n-paste from a well known left-wing, commie, pinko, subversive, al-queda-like, Chavez loving, America hating American - Robert Novak
his following comment may be an accurate relfection of "How Diplomacy Works" today
"Republicans in Congress who do not want to be quoted tell me that the State Department under Condoleezza Rice is a mess"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011002021.html
thank you, again
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/12/2007 9:52 AM
Does it really matter, It's not like we own the pacific ocean. Do we have to explain what we do to every country, then why do they have to explain to us, get over it if we are scared of one song on deployment we have big issue. Had the song not broached we probably still would'nt know it was there. If you have not figured it out we are headed back to the cold war just change the name of the country.
1/13/2007 7:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home