US Policy Paradox: How To Lose Friends And Influence Nothing

Authored by Adam Garrie via The Asia Times,

When Paul Robeson belted out the lyric “I’m tired of living, and scared of dying,” he stumbled on to a paradox of emotional dissonance that could easily define the geo-strategic cognitive dissonance that the US exhibits when dealing with its fellow superpowers Russia and China.

Time and again the United States has shown that it does not want war with either of those countries, and these feelings are of course mutual. However, the US has a strange penchant for conducting provocative measures that inexorably harm relations with both Russia and China in mind-blowingly close proximity in time to moves suggesting rapprochement or, at minimum, de-escalation of tensions.

The most recent example is the Pentagon signing an agreement to open lines of direct communication with the commanders of the People’s Liberation Army to avoid “miscalculations” in areas ranging from the Korean Peninsula to the South and East China Seas.

In a rational environment, this would be seen as a US climb-down over actions China finds unacceptable in Korea and in its maritime waters. But in the current environment, while the US has signed an agreement that would ideally reduce tensions between the Chinese and US armed forces, the US president has also authorized his government to open an investigation into Chinese trade practices. While the proximate issue is US intellectual-property rights in China, the phrase “anti-Chinese sanctions” is on the tip of everyone’s lips.

Far from being out of character, the dichotomy of cooperating with China and engaging in a would-be pre-emptive trade war that the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has warned could be deeply dangerous is actually par for the course under the Trump administration.

On July 7, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met for the first time. The most meaningful outcome of the meeting was the agreement jointly to police a ceasefire and accompanying de-escalation zone in southwestern Syria, along with Jordan.

Less than a month later, Trump signed a sanctions bill against Russia that Moscow remains furious about. Détente 2.0 officially lasted from July 7 to August 3, 2017.

In respect of Iran, the Trump administration has quietly but officially stated that Tehran has not violated a single clause of the 2015 nuclear deal, but US officials continue to sanction Iran and continue to speak of Iran as though it has violated every agreement ever signed in history.

This has the aggregate effect of making the United States appear tired of warring but scared of cooperating.

In reality, neither Russia, China nor Iran wants war with the United States. One could also add North Korea, Mexico, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe or just about every other country on the planet to that list.

Therefore, while moves to de-escalate military tensions are positive developments no matter where they happen, the mixed signals the US is sending will only serve as a demonstration that the US is not serious about proper de-escalation and cooperation and therefore it is only natural for the wider world to assume the worst about the United States, which far too often translates into “the tense status quo hasn’t changed”.

What’s more is that while pundits argue over whether this is part of a larger American geo-strategic plan to sow confusion or is simply an inexperienced Trump administration that cannot decide if it is coming or going, the wider world is more concerned with the effect than the cause.  

In this sense, the US is less like the longing voice of “Old Man River” than it is like the author of a future worst-seller, “How to Lose Friends and Influence Nothing”.

China Unveils New Weapons - From Stealth Fighters To ICBMs

Authored by Jeffrey Lin and P.W.Singer via PopSci.com,

As part of the People"s Liberation Army"s 90th anniversary celebration - it was founded on August 1, 1927 -  President Xi Jinping (in military fatigues) hosted a giant parade at the Zhurihe Training Center.

Zhurihe - Zhurihe certainly has enough room to hold all the people and equipment for a parade with thousands of soldiers, hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles, and dozens of ICBMs. -Xinhua News Agency

Here, PLA"s most elite forces demonstrated how far China has come in modern warfare. CCTV broadcast the session, which means a domestic and global audience of millions saw the army"s showcase of tanks, stealth fighters, artillery, and ICBMs.

Combat support vehicles were not forgotten. Combat engineering vehicles, BZK-006 UAV launch vehicles, communications vehicles, and even fuel tankers followed.

There was plenty of air power, too. A trio of J-20 stealth fighters flew over the parade, followed by Y-20 heavy transport aircraft, KJ-2000 AEW&C aircraft, J-16 strike fighters, J-15 carrier fighters, and J-10B fighters. The latest H-6K bombers, along with H-6U aerial tankers and Y-9 transports, also made an appearance.

J-20 - Three J-20 stealth fighters led the aerial portion of the PLA"s 90th anniversary parade. -Xinhua News Agency

Z-10 attack and Z-18 transport helicopters showed up, flying in formations shaped like "90," as well as the Chinese characters for 8-1 (a reference to August 1), with the Z-18 transports landing to disgorge airmobile infantry.

The highlight was likely the public debut of not just one, but 16 DF-31AG intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The DF-31AG is an improvement over the 7,146-mile-range DF-31A ICBM. It carries a larger, reinforced missile canister likely carrying a more powerful missile with increased range or payload. The DF-31AG also uses an all-terrain 8X8 launch vehicle, enabling it to go off-road, which will make it much harder to find compared to its truck-launched predecessor. 

DF-31AG - Sixteen DF-31AG ICBMs marched in the parade. China likely has more DF-31AGs in addition to those, thanks to a recent, rapid build-up of Chinese nuclear forces. -Xinhua News Agency

The presence of 16 new ICBMs (there are likely other DF-31AGs not present at the parade), along with several dozen other ICBMs, shows that China"s nuclear global strike capacity is growing in size and capability. 

Other missiles present: the DF-31A ICBM, the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, and the DF-16 short-range ballistic missile. Surface-to-air missiles were well represented by HQ-9B and HQ-16 SAMs, as well as LD-2000 and PGZ-07 anti-air cannons. The surface-attack options were represented by CJ-10 cruise missiles, YJ-62 and YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, and YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile.

The fact that the parade took place not in Beijing, but in Inner Mongolia, was symbolic. Zhurihe hosts the PLA"s annual Stride exercises. These wargames pit the resident "Blue Team" (a mechanized infantry brigade that uses NATO tactics) against visiting PLA units. These wargames are played in a variety of urban, hill, and open-area locations, often under intensive conditions, including simulated nuclear battlefields.

US Orders All Passport Holders Out Of North Korea After September 1

Having issued an indirect travel alert "urging" US national to "depart immediately" from North Korea two weeks ago, the US State Department has escalated their perspective on US citizens" travel to, in, or through North Korea dramatically by declaring all U.S. passports invalid for travel, implicitly ordering all Americans out of North Korea from September 1st 2017.

ACTION:

Notice of passport travel restriction.

SUMMARY:

The Department of State is declaring all U.S. passports invalid for travel to the Democratic People"s Republic of Korea (North Korea) unless the travel meets certain criteria.

DATES:

The travel restriction is in effect on September 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anita Mody, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Legal Affairs, 202-485-6500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department of State has determined that the serious risk to United States nationals of arrest and long-term detention represents imminent danger to the physical safety of United States nationals traveling to and within the Democratic People"s Republic of Korea (DPRK), within the meaning of 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3). Therefore, pursuant to the authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), and in accordance with 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3), all United States passports are declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel, as specified at 22 CFR 51.64. The restriction on travel to the DPRK shall be effective 30 days after publication of this Notice, and shall remain in effect for one year unless extended or sooner revoked by the Secretary of State.

The announcement comes as tensions continue to rise - and accelerate - over North Korea and its missile program, and just days after both North Korea and the US exchanged very symbolic ICBM test launches. Also, on Tuesday Senator Lindsey Graham said that President Donald Trump is considering war on North Korea if it continues its missile tests and nuclear weapons program.

And with US and China now trading barbs directly, with the smell of trade war in the air, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in a statement that

“China and Russia bear unique and special responsibility for this growing threat” posed by North Korea as they are the “principal economic enablers” of the country.

China’s President Xi Jinping responded, in his highly anticipated speech at the 90th-anniversary celebration of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on Tuesday, directing the military — which he heads — to be prepared for a military engagement at any time.

“Xi also asked the military to focus on preparations for war, and urged its leaders to improve capabilities in modern warfare and combat readiness. The military should be ready to win a war whenever needed, he said.

“As commander-in-chief of China’s military, Xi said that with the unprecedented changes happening around the world, China’s armed forces are the bottom line guarantee for defending peace and security.”

Though he did not point to any situations specifically that would require China’s military to be at a default state of readiness for war, it’s difficult to imagine that Xi wasn’t referring chiefly to heightening tensions over North Korea.

Which leaves one question - what does the State Department know about September 1st? Here"s one suggestion: with no US aircraft carriers currently off the Korean coast, as both departed in recent weeks

... it will take at least 2-3 weeks before they reassemble within striking distance of North Korea. September 1 should leave a comfortable cushion of time before the inevitable "next steps."

Hillary Clinton Explains Our 'North Korea, South Korea, China' Policy

Authored by Gaius Publius via Down With Tyranny blog,

"We don"t want a unified Korean peninsula ... We [also] don"t want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb."

—Hillary Clinton, 2013, speech to Goldman Sachs

Our policy toward North Korea is not what most people think it is. We don"t want the North Koreans to go away. In fact, we like them doing what they"re doing; we just want less of it than they"ve been doing lately. If this sounds confusing, it"s because this policy is unlike what the public has been led to assume. Thanks to something uncovered by WikiLeaks, the American public has a chance to be unconfused about what"s really going on with respect to our policies in Korea.

This piece isn"t intended to criticize that policy; it may be an excellent one. I just want to help us understand it better.

Our source for the U.S. government"s actual Korean policy — going back decades really — is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She resigned that position in February 2013, and on June 4, 2013 she gave a speech at Goldman Sachs with Lloyd Blankfein present (perhaps on stage with her) in which she discussed in what sounds like a very frank manner, among many other things, the U.S. policy toward the two Korea and the relationship of that policy to China.

That speech and two others were sent by Tony Carrk of the Clinton campaign to a number of others in the campaign, including John Podesta. WikiLeaks subsequently released that email as part of its release of other Podesta emails (source email with attachments here). In that speech, Clinton spoke confidentially and, I believe, honestly. What she said in that speech, I take her as meaning truthfully. There"s certainly no reason for her to lie to her peers, and in some cases her betters, at Goldman Sachs. The entire speech reads like elites talking with elites in a space reserved just for them.

I"m not trying to impugn Clinton or WikiLeaks by writing this — that"s not my intention at all. I just want to learn from what she has to say — from a position of knowledge — about the real U.S. policy toward North Korea. After all, if Goldman Sachs executives can be told this, it can"t be that big a secret. We should be able to know it as well.

What Clinton"s Speech Tells Us about U.S. Korea Policy

The WikiLeaks tweet is above. The entire speech, contained in the attachment to the email, is here. I"ve reprinted some of the relevant portions below, first quoting Ms. Clinton with some interspersed comments from me. Then, adding some thoughts about what this seems to imply about our approach to and relations with South Korea.

The Korea section of the Goldman Sachs speech starts with a discussion of China, and then Blankfein pivots to Korea. Blankfein"s whole question that leads to the Clinton quote tweeted by WikiLeaks above (my emphasis throughout):

MR. BLANKFEIN: The Japanese -- I was more surprised that it wasn"t like that when you think of -- all these different things. It"s such a part of who they are, their response to Japan. If you bump into the Filipino fishing boats, then I think you really -- while we"re in the neighborhood [i.e., discussing Asia], the Chinese is going to help us or help themselves -- what is helping themselves? North Korea? On the one hand they [the Chinese] wouldn"t want -- they don"t want to unify Korea, but they can"t really like a nutty nuclear power on their border. What is their interests and what are they going to help us do?

Clinton"s whole answer is reprinted in the WikiLeaks tweet attachment (click through to the tweet and expand the embedded image to read it all). The relevant portions, for my purposes, are printed below. From the rest of her remarks, the context of Blankfein"s question and Clinton"s answer is the threat posed by a North Korean ICBM, not unlike the situation our government faces today.

MS. CLINTON: Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy has been close to what you"ve described. We don"t want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons.

We [also] don"t want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb. So we"ve got a pretty good thing going with the previous North Korean leaders [Kim Il-sung and Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations coming from them. He engages in all kinds of both public and private rhetoric, which seems to suggest that he is preparing himself to stand against not only the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Americans, but also the Chinese.

Translation — three points:

• The U.S. prefers that Korea stay divided. If Korea were to unite, South Korea would be in charge, and we don"t want South Korea to become any more powerful than it already is.


• We also don"t want the trouble North Korea causes South Korea to extend beyond the region. We want it to stay within previously defined bounds.


• Our arrangement with the two previous North Korean leaders met both of those objectives. North Korea"s new leader, Kim Jung-un, is threatening that arrangement.

It appears that China has the same interest in keeping this situation as-is that we do. That is, they want South Korea (and us) to have a Korean adversary, but they don"t want the adversary acting out of acceptable bounds — coloring outside the lines laid down by the Chinese (and the U.S.), as it were. Clinton:

So the new [Chinese] leadership basically calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. And a high ranking North Korean military official has just finished a visit in Beijing and basically told [him, as a message from the Chinese]: Cut it out. Just stop it. Who do you think you are? And you are dependent on us [the Chinese], and you know it. And we expect you to demonstrate the respect that your father and your grandfather [Kim Jung-il, Kim Il-sung] showed toward us, and there will be a price to pay if you do not.

Now, that looks back to an important connection of what I said before. The biggest supporters of a provocative North Korea has been the PLA [the Chinese People"s Liberation Army]. The deep connections between the military leadership in China and in North Korea has really been the mainstay of the relationship. So now all of a sudden new leadership with Xi and his team, and they"re saying to the North Koreans -- and by extension to the PLA -- no. It is not acceptable. We don"t need this [trouble] right now. We"ve got other things going on. So you"re going to have to pull back from your provocative actions, start talking to South Koreans again about the free trade zones, the business zones on the border, and get back to regular order and do it quickly.

Now, we don"t care if you occasionally shoot off a missile. That"s good. That upsets the Americans and causes them heartburn, but you can"t keep going down a path that is unpredictable. We don"t like that. That is not acceptable to us.

So I think they"re trying to reign Kim Jong in. I think they"re trying to send a clear message to the North Korean military. They also have a very significant trade relationship with Seoul and they"re trying to reassure Seoul that, you know, we"re now on the case.

Clinton ends with a fourth point:

• From the U.S. standpoint, the current problem is now on the Chinese to fix.

Clinton:

So they want to keep North Korea within their orbit. They want to keep it predictable in their view. They have made some rather significant statements recently that they would very much like to see the North Koreans pull back from their nuclear program. Because I and everybody else -- and I know you had Leon Panetta here this morning. You know, we all have told the Chinese if they continue to develop this missile program and they get an ICBM that has the capacity to carry a small nuclear weapon on it, which is what they"re aiming to do, we cannot abide that. Because they could not only do damage to our treaty allies, namely Japan and South Korea, but they could actually reach Hawaii and the west coast theoretically, and we"re going to ring China with missile defense. We"re going to put more of our fleet in the area.

So China, come on. You either control them or we"re going to have to defend against them.

The four bullets above (three, and then one) give a very clear definition of longstanding U.S. policy toward the two Koreas. I think the only surprise in this, for us civilians, is that the U.S. doesn"t want the Korean peninsula unified. So two questions: Why not? And, do the South Koreans know this? I"ll offer brief answers below.

The "Great Game" In East Asia — Keeping the Korean "Tiger" in Check

South Korea is one of the great emerging nations in East Asia, one of the "Asian tigers," a manufacturing and economic powerhouse that"s lately been turning into a technological and innovative powerhouse as well.

For example, one of just many, from Forbes:

Why South Korea Will Be The Next Global Hub For Tech Startups

American business has long led the way in high tech density or the proportion of businesses that engage in activities such as Internet software and services, hardware and semiconductors. The US is fertile ground for tech start-ups with access to capital and a culture that celebrates risk taking. Other countries have made their mark on the world stage, competing to be prominent tech and innovation hubs. Israel has been lauded as a start-up nation with several hundred companies getting funded by venture capital each year. A number of these companies are now being acquired by the likes of Apple, Facebook and Google. Finland and Sweden have attracted notice by bringing us Angry Birds and Spotify among others. But a new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South Korea. [...]

In other words, South Korea has leaped beyond being a country that keeps U.S. tech CEOs wealthy — it"s now taking steps that threaten that wealth itself. And not just in electronics; the biological research field — think cloning — is an area the South Koreans are trying to take a lead in as well.

It"s easy to understand Ms. Clinton"s — and the business-captured American government"s — interest in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn"t further threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity of the South Korean government and economy. Let them (the Koreans) manufacture to their heart"s content, our policy seems to say; but to threaten our lead in billionaire-producing entrepreneurship ... that"s a bridge too far.

Again, this is Clinton speaking, I"m absolutely certain, on behalf of U.S. government policy makers and the elites they serve: We don"t want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one, an already-strong South Korea would be dominant for obvious economic reasons.

As to whether the South Koreans know that this is our policy, I"d have to say, very likely yes. After all, if Clinton is saying this to meetings of Goldman Sachs executives, it can"t be that big a secret. It"s just that the South Korea leadership knows better than the North Korean leader how to handle it.

[Update: It"s been suggested in comments (initially here) that Clinton"s "we" in her answer to Blankfein"s question was a reference to China"s policy, not our own. I"m doubtful that"s true, but it"s an interpretation worth considering. Even so, the U.S. and Chinese policies toward the two Koreas are certainly aligned, and, as Clinton says, "for the obvious economic and political reasons." (That argument was also expressed in comments here.)  I therefore think the thrust of the piece below is valid under either interpretation of Clinton"s use of "we." –GP]

China Warns North Korea Situation Has Hit "Tipping Point", Threatens "Never Before Seen" Measures

After warnings yesterday, and on the heels of a "very good call" with President Trump, China has escalated its threats to North Korea over its nuclear tests. In another Global Times op-ed, China warns "if the North makes another provocative move this month, the Chinese society will be willing to adopt severe restrictive measures that have never been seen before..."

Yesterday"s editorial in the military-focused Global Times tabloid, owned and operated by the Communist Party"s People"s Daily newspaper, said that North Korea’s nuclear activities must not jeopardize northeastern China, and that if the North impacts China with its illicit nuclear tests through either "nuclear leakage or pollution", then China will respond with force.

“China has a bottom line that it will protect at all costs, that is, the security and stability of northeast China... If the bottom line is touched, China will employ all means available including the military means to strike back. By that time, it is not an issue of discussion whether China acquiesces in the US’ blows, but the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will launch attacks to DPRK nuclear facilities on its own."

This, as the editorial puts it, is the "bottom line" for China; should it be crossed China will employ all means available including the military means to strike back," warned the editorial.

Overnight, Trump and Xi held a call, which Trump said went well...

Had a very good call last night with the President of China concerning the menace of North Korea.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2017

And today we see another Global Times editorial somewhat supporting US and increasing its threats to North Korea...

Washington"s latest threat to Pyongyang is more credible given its just launched missile attack at an air base in Syria. The Korean Peninsula has never been so close to a military clash since the North conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.

If Pyongyang conducts its sixth nuclear test in the near future, the possibility of US military action against it will be higher than ever. Not only Washington brimming with confidence and arrogance following the missile attacks on Syria, but Trump is also willing to be regarded as a man who honors his promises.

Now the Trump team seems to have decided to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis. As the discussion runs deeper, a situation of no-solution will not be accepted.

A new nuclear test or an intercontinental ballistic missile test, if conducted by Pyongyang at this time, will be a slap in the face of the US government and will intensify the confrontation between North Korea and the US.

Presumably Beijing will react strongly to Pyongyang"s new nuclear actions. China will not remain indifferent to Pyongyang"s aggravating violation of the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution.

More and more Chinese support the view that the government should enhance sanctions over Pyongyang"s nuclear activities. If the North makes another provocative move this month, the Chinese society will be willing to see the UNSC adopt severe restrictive measures that have never been seen before, such as restricting oil imports to the North. Pyongyang"s nuclear weapons program is intended for securing the regime, however, it is reaching a tipping point. Pyongyang hopes its gamble will work, but all signs point to the opposite direction.

The US is making up its mind to stop the North from conducting further nuclear tests, it doesn"t plan to co-exist with a nuclear-armed Pyongyang.

As we concluded yesterday, after China"s initial warning; the most notable part of the oped is the mention in the Global Times editorial that North Korea will not be "not allowed to have a government that is hostile against China on the other side of the Yalu River."  This implies that if and when the US initiate strikes on NK, the Chinese PLA will likely send out troops "to lay the foundation" for a favorable post-war situation.

In other words, China may be just waiting for Trump to "decapitate" the North Korean regime, to pounce and immediately fill the power vacuum.

Stocks Slide On Report China Has Deployed 150,000 Troops To North Korea Border

While the catalyst is unclear, it appears the market dropped as headlines of further sanctions against Russia appeared and reports of China deploiying 150,000 troops to its North Korea border.

According to Korean news agency Chosun, the "Chinese army has deployed about 150,000 troops to the North Korean border in two groups to prepare for unforeseen circumstances." The reason: the prospect of "military options", such as preemptive attacks on North Korea, like the one the United States launched on Syria.

More Google translated:

As the United States announced its independent North Korean behavior and moved the United States Navy"s nuclear-powered Calvinus (CVN-70) carrier class to Singapore, the Chinese army has deployed about 150,000 troops in two groups to prepare for unforeseen circumstances.

"The report said. It is because of the prospect of taking "military options", such as preemptive attacks on North Korea, just as the United States has launched an air raid on Syria.

Japan"s Sankei Shimbun reported on the 9th that the Syrian missile strike in the United States shocked China, suggesting that the People"s Liberation Army forces are moving toward the Yalu River, .

The newspaper said the video was also broadcast on the Internet, but the authorities removed the relevant information, saying the move was a medical and aft support unit for the Shenyang bulb (the northern light bulb)

Another possible catalyst is a report by Russia"s interfax that Moscow is preparing for more sanctions, and has warned local air companies about a possible suspension of charter flights with Tu

• POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIAN MILITARY OVER SYRIA NOT TO AFFECT RUSSIA"S ACTIONS IN SYRIA, OPERATION TO FIGHT TERRORISTS TO CONTINUE - OZEROV


• RUSSIAN AIR COMPANIES RECEIVE WARNING ABOUT POSSIBLE SUSPENSION OF CHARTER FLIGHTS WITH TURKEY - SOURCE

Whatever the catalyst, the reaction is clear:

Dropping stocks below the levels right before Syrian airstrikes began...

The Dow is back at crucial support at the 50--day moving average...

Taking everything but Trannies back into the red for the day.

Gold is bid back over $1250 as USDJPY suddenly plunges.

Beijing Goes Global: China Expands Marine Force 400%; First Overseas Military Base Almost Complete

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

For most of its recent history, China has largely been a land power with no significant naval capabilities. They haven’t been able to exert much military influence beyond their coastline for hundreds of years. In fact, one of the reasons why Western powers had no trouble bullying China during the 19th and 20th centuries, was because the Imperial Navy under the Qing dynasty was incredibly weak. With that in mind, it’s no surprise that lately, China has been putting a lot of effort into building an effective overseas naval force.

Not only have they been busy constructing their first combat-ready aircraft carrier, the Chinese have also been developing new aircrafts to accompany it. Of course, a navy can’t really exert much military influence if it doesn’t have soldiers to deploy. That’s why Chinese officials have recently announced that they are preparing to rapidly expand the ranks of the People’s Liberation Army Marine Corps.

Chinese media is reporting the People’s Liberation Army’s ambitious new plans following the announcement of a 7 per cent increase to $200 billion in defence spending last week.

 

Among the details to emerge is a move to boost China’s marine corps — highly trained and well equipped troops intended for rapid deployment and offensive missions launched from the sea — from an existing 20,000 troops to more than 100,000.

 

Chinese officials have stated this is to protect arterial maritime trade routes and enforce its growing overseas interests.

“What growing overseas interests” you might ask?

Well, China has been in the process of building their first overseas military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. And that base is expected to be completed this summer.

Marine Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, commander of AfriCom, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he expected the Chinese base on the Horn of Africa to be operational later this summer.

Without getting specific, Waldhauser said he recently met with Djibouti’s President Ismail Omar Guelleh “and expressed our concerns about some of the things that are important to us about what the Chinese should not do at that location.”

The Chinese base would be about four miles from the U.S. base at Camp Lemonnier, one of the Pentagon’s largest and most important foreign military installations, where about 3,000 U.S. military personnel and contractors are assigned to Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.

Given that base’s close proximity to Camp Lemonnier, China’s intentions are obvious.

They want what the United States has, which is a vast overseas empire, and an expeditionary force that can reach any coastline in the world. They want to compete with our current role in the global theater. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough room in the world for two countries carrying out that role. We may very well be witnessing the first stages of a new conflict between the United States and China.

China Prepares Countermeasures Against South Korea Missile Shield

The recent deployment by South Korea of the controversial US-made Terminal High Altitude Area ­Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system in response to potential ballistic threats from North Korea, has led to a furious response by China, whose first-strike ability would be compromised under the existing military configuration.  And as BBC reports, "the deployment in South Korea of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system has been slammed by Beijing. Now the Chinese Communist Party is calling on its people to embrace their ill will towards their neighbours" and notes that as anti South-Korea fever sweep China, local school students chant "Boycott Sth Korea!", and smash South Korean appliances as the "communist Party unleashes anti-Korea spirit."

However, while eliciting up a traditional nationalistic response by China was to be expected, what is more troubling is that according to the South China Morning Post, China is set to deploy anti-radar countermeasures which will neutralize the South Korean THAAD. The THAAD system consists of a sophisticated radar and interceptor missiles designed to spot and knock out incoming ballistic missiles.

Speaking to retired PLA general Wang Hongguang, the SCMP reports that China knew it might not be able to stop Seoul deploying a US anti-missile system "and was prepared to counter with its own anti-radar equipment." The comments came as a South Korean court’s decision to uphold the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye had fanned hopes Seoul might put plans for the Terminal High Altitude Area ­Defence system on hold.  Park supported the installation of the system to help protect South Korea against threats from North Korea, which Beijing says can peer through China’s defences. However, such a de-escalation does not appear to be imminent.

Wang, former deputy commander of the Nanjing Military Region, said China could not take the chance the next South Korean president would change policy and roll back the deployment, and added that Beijing had measures in place to neutralize THAAD’s radars.

“We will complete our deployment before THAAD begins operations. There is no need to wait for two months [before the election of the next South Korean president],” he said on the sidelines of the political sessions in Beijing. “We already have such equipment in place. We just have to move it to the right spot.”

Going even further, Yue Gang, a military commentator and former People’s Liberation Army colonel, said China could either destroy THAAD or neutralise it. However, he hedged by adding that “destroying [THAAD] should only be an option during wartime." However, China could and would interfere with the system’s functions through electromagnetic technology, he said. Yue said an ideal place to install the Chinese equipment was on the Shandong peninsula on the country’s east coast, opposite South Korea.

Quoted by SCMP, Fu Qianshao, an aviation equipment expert with the PLA Air Force, said China could also send planes – manned or unmanned – to fly close to THAAD to interfere with its radar signals. All the country’s armed forces had the capacity to interfere with radar signals, Fu said.

Wang said China’s chief concern was not just with South Korea’s deployment of the American system but also the United States’ broader potential to contain the region in a sophisticated web of missile defence systems in Japan, Singapore, the Philippines and even Taiwan.

Stated differently, the ongoing diplomatic escalation between China and South Korea over THAAD is really just China lashing out against the ongoing interefence by the US, which seeks to blanket its allies in the region in a mesh that would eliminate China"s tactical first strike advantage, in the process putting the precariouar nuclear balance of power in the region in jeopardy, the same way that the deployment of the US Aegis ashore anti-missile shielf system in Eastern Europe has put Russia on edge, as it too, has lost its first strike capabilities, if only for now.  The question, for both China and Russia, is what deterrence they will unveil in response, as a "game theoretical" layout in which two nuclear-armed superpowers suddenly finds themselves questioning their offensive supriority never leads to favorable outcomes, at least in (game) theory.

US Begins Deployment Of Controversial THAAD Anti-Missile System To South Korea

Well that escalated quickly. Just a day after North Korea"s test firing of 4 missiles towards US bases in Japan, and hours after North Korea warned the world was "on the brink of nuclear war" due to US-South Korea "maneuvers," CNN reports the first pieces of the controversial US-built missile defense system (designed to mitigate the threat of North Korean missiles) arrived at the Osan Air Base in South Korea Monday night, according to the US military.

The decision in January to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system, had angered both Russian and Chinese officials:

"We think the US-South Korean decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system has seriously threatened China"s security interest. For the region, it will also break the strategic balance. So it"s completely understandable to see countries in the region firmly oppose this decision," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said. "China and other countries have to address our own legitimate security concerns and take necessary measures to safeguard our security interest."

"Deployment of US missile defense systems in South Korea clearly goes beyond the tasks of deterring "the North Korean threat,"" Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said in October, according to Russian state-run Tass news agency.

And now - dramatically faster than expected - the deployment has begun.

Some equipments including 2 launch pads for U.S. missile defense system known as Thaad arrived in South Korea on Monday and will continue to be brought in, Yonhap News says, citing unidentified South Korean military official.

"Continued provocative actions by North Korea, to include yesterday"s launch of multiple missiles, only confirm the prudence of our alliance decision last year to deploy THAAD to South Korea," Adm. Harry Harris, commander, US Pacific Command, said in a news release.

US Secretary of Defense James Mattis and South Korean Defense Secretary Han Min-koo spoke over the phone last week and agreed that THAAD should be deployed "ASAP."

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer signaled the deployment Monday when he told reporters that the United States is "taking steps to enhance our ability to defend against North Korea"s ballistic missiles, such as through the deployment of a THAAD battery to South Korea." U.S. defense officials confirmed to NBC News on Monday night that that meant delivery was already under way — not that the United States was simply restating its previous promises to send the system to South Korea sometime in the future.

The US and its allies in the region, notably South Korea and Japan, tend to focus on THAAD"s defensive nature. They tout its value as a system to prevent a missile from hitting a target and killing people.

"This is purely a defensive measure that the alliance must take in light of the serious threat posed by North Korean missiles," Chris Bush, a spokesman for the US Forces in Korea said.

But Beijing and Moscow don"t see it that way.

"We do not have any doubts that US, with support of their allies, will continue to build up the potential of the Asia Pacific segment of their global missile system, which will inevitably lead to disruption of established strategic balances both in the Asia Pacific and beyond."

Interestingly, it"s not just Russian and Chinese officials that are against the US deployment of THAAD; South Korean presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung and mayor of Seongnam City commented:

"We have to realize clearly that THAAD cannot stop the nuclear missiles coming from the DPRK. How can the 48 missiles of THAAD stop the over 1,000 missiles from the DPRK? The north of Chungcheongbuk-do and the capital area jointly account for more than half of our population and most of our territory. THAAD cannot even cover these areas, but merely increases the regional military tensions. To be honest, deploying THAAD will hurt both us and China. No one will gain anything from it. The starting point of THAAD is wrong, so we have to reconsider it completely. Otherwise, our future will be gloomy, chaotic and insecure."

Clearly the rush to get THAAD deployed counters any pre-emptive rejection by Lee. We are sure China"s response will be swift at this apparent "retaliation" by the US.

As Strategic Culture"s Nan Li previously noted, China is opposed to THAAD deployment for several reasons.

First, Chinese analysts believe that THAAD in South Korea is intended to intercept missiles launched, not from North Korea, but from China and Russia. THAAD has an operational range of 200 kilometers (km) and is designed to intercept missiles at altitudes between 40 and 180 km. Such altitudes, according to analysts from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), match the “terminal phase” of the intermediate, long-range and even intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), or those with ranges exceeding 3,500 km. PLA analysts also claim that they match the “mid-course phase” of medium-range missiles, or those with ranges between 1,000 and 3,500 km, including China’s DF-21 and DF-26 missiles. Because the direct threats to South Korea — including the Seoul area, where 40 percent of the South Korean population resides — are North Korea’s long-range artilleries and short-range ballistic missiles, THAAD, they believe, is clearly a mismatch against such threats.

Chinese analysts are particularly concerned about THAAD’s X-band radar. Even though it would be configured as a fire-control radar with a detection range of 600 km, it perhaps could be reconfigured as an early-warning radar, which allows a detection range exceeding 2,000 km. Such a range suggests that China’s missile activities on land and at sea in northern and eastern China may be mostly exposed. The radar allegedly can see the critical processes where warheads and decoys are released during China’s strategic missile tests. In times of war, it can undermine the reliability of China’s strategic deterrent because in comparison with Alaska-based radars, it is believed to be capable of acquiring more than ten minutes of early warning time against China’s strategic ballistic missiles. It can also differentiate real warheads from decoys. If integrated into the U.S. national missile defense network, this radar allegedly can increase the odds of success in intercepting Chinese missiles even at their “boost phase,” reducing further the reliability of China’s already small strategic deterrent and tilting the strategic balance in favor of the United States.

Moreover, Chinese analysts believe that the Korean Peninsula has historically been a nearby sphere critical to China’s security. They worry that by deploying THAAD, South Korea could share data with the United States and Japan on air traffic control, air defense, and early warning. This may help to integrate South Korea-based systems with U.S. and Japanese sensors and sea-based Aegis systems, with the goal of forming a trilateral strategic alliance to contain China at China’s door steps. Chinese analysts believe that North Korean nuclear tests were only an excuse used by the United States to deploy THAAD, the real U.S. intention being to drive a wedge between South Korea and China at a time when China-South Korea relations were improving substantially, as reflected in the countries’ booming bilateral trade and Park Geun-hye’s attendance at the Victory Day Parade in Beijing in September 2015. THAAD deployment would bring the United States and South Korea closer at the expense of China’s security. This could help the United States to stabilize U.S.-South Korea relations and prevent the possible loss of the U.S. military foothold on the Korean Peninsula.

Chinese analysts have proposed a wide range of countermeasures to retaliate against the THAAD deployment. They argue that to restore regional “strategic balance,” China should cooperate with Russia in developing strategic offensive weapons, particularly in developing “penetration” technologies that can defeat missile defense. Other proposed countermeasures include concealment and redeployment of China’s strategic capabilities to reduce their exposure to the THAAD radar, and accelerated development of China’s own missile defense systems. Other analysts argue for economic sanctions.