http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/21/inside-the-ring-300362848/
By Bill Gertz <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/bill-gertz/> 7:41 p.m., Wednesday, July 21, 2010 Chinese carrier pressure The Obama <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/presidency-of-barack-obama/> administration has given in to pressure from China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> and will not send the aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS George Washington to the Yellow Sea for upcoming naval exercises. The move followed protests from Beijing that a warship group in that area would pose a threat to China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> . The carrier, however, will take part in exercises beginning this weekend on the eastern side of the Korean Peninsula in the Sea of Japan <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/> , a location that was not opposed by China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> . Officially, Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> spokesmen insist the decision on the Yellow Sea has not yet been made. But defense officials close to the issue told Inside the Ring the decision not to send the carrier to the next phase of the maneuvers, which are intended as a saber-rattling message to North Korea <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-korea/> , is already set. As a result, the officials said the failure to send the carrier will be viewed by China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> as a sign of U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> weakness and will undermine U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> efforts to maintain freedom of navigation in the western Pacific near China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> . Chinese <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/chinese-government/> government and military spokesmen in recent days announced that any dispatch of a carrier to waters near its territory would be a threat to China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> . Chinese Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/zhu-chenghu/> told state-run media July 19 that the Yellow Sea is a "sensitive area." He said sending the aircraft carrier strike group there would be a threat because its combat attack radius would cover all of China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> and its reconnaissance reach would penetrate deep inside the country. "If the United <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> States truly wants to take into account the overall interests of the Sino-U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> relationship, then it must on no account send its USS Washington to the Yellow Sea," Gen. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/zhu-chenghu/> Zhu said. Plans for the large-scale U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> -South Korean naval and aircraft exercises irked Beijing, which sided with Pyongyang in the dispute over the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan, which killed 46 sailors. Chinese military officials have said publicly that they doubt the findings of the probe linking the torpedo attack to North Korea <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-korea/> . Adm.Mike Mullen <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-mullen/> , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters traveling with him in Asia on Tuesday that he understands China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> 's concerns. "The Yellow Sea, specifically, is an international body of water. And the United <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> States always reserves the right to operate in those, in international waters. And certainly, I hear what the Chinese are saying with respect to that," he said. "But in fact we have exercised in the Yellow Sea for a long time, and I fully expect that we'll do so in the future." However, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/robert-m-gates/> and Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> spokesman Geoff <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/geoff-morrell/> Morrellsidestepped questions about whether the George Washington would take part in the upcoming Yellow Sea war games. Mr. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/geoff-morrell/> Morrell said only the first part of the joint U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> -South Korea <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/south-korea/> exercises were announced. "Follow-on exercises are still under development, and the dates, locations and assets to be deployed have not been determined yet," he told Inside the Ring. "But I can assure you, we will be training in both the Sea of Japan <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/> and the Yellow Sea, as we have done many times before." Mr. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/geoff-morrell/> Morrell said he would not discuss "any particular ship," but stated: "We reserve the right to operate in any and all international waters. We cede nothing in terms of freedom of navigation." Michael <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-pillsbury/> Pillsbury, a former Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> official and specialist on Chinese military affairs, said a decision not to send the carrier to the Yellow Sea exercises would reflect a two-decade-old, misguided U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> policy that incorrectly "sought to reassure Chinese paranoid views about U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> intentions." "The many dissenters who claim this approach will not work have always been overruled," Mr. Pillsbury <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/michael-pillsbury/> said. "The dilemma has been to find a metric that will reveal whether this long-term strategy has been effective, or whether we are causing the Chinese to assess us to be a declining power that does not dare challenge China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> anymore." "The decision about whether and when to deploy a carrier to the west of the Korean Peninsula should be driven primarily by the requirement to assure our ally and deter North Korea <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-korea/> against further provocations," said Stephen Yates <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/stephen-yates/> , an Asian-affairs specialist and former White House <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/> national security official in the Bush <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bush-administration/> administration. "Alleged Chinese sensitivities should not be a factor." Mr. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/stephen-yates/> Yates said no rational Chinese leader can assert that the carrier strike group is "a platform from which to intimidate, much less attack, China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> ." "And the signal of retreat most surely deepens the danger of future provocations from the North," he said. A White House National Security Council spokesman referred questions about the carrier to the Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> . However, a senior administration official told the Nelson Report newsletter: "Where comes this obsession with sending a show of force/carrier message to the Chinese in a case that doesn't involve them?" The official said the Chinese "picked up false rumors from the media we were going to have a particular kind of exercise." "They stupidly reacted publicly. So now we have to compound the felony by taking a foolish step that was falsely rumored . lest we be seen as weak? No thanks. Deploying a carrier is a serious business. This is not." Asked about Chinese opposition to the war games on Tuesday, Adm. Robert <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/robert-f-willard/> Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters in Seoul that he was not worried China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> might protest the naval exercises by extending its suspension of military-to-military exchanges with the Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> . "No, I'm not concerned," he said. "If I have a concern vis-a-vis China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> , it's that China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> exert itself to influence Pyongyang to see that incidents like Cheonan don't occur in the future. They clearly have a very strong relationship with North Korea <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-korea/> , and we would like very much to see them exert the influence to see that a Cheonan never happens again." China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> recently held a series of naval exercises in the Yellow Sea that involved the use of new high-speed, wave-piercing catamarans equipped with anti-ship missiles. U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> military officials said the fast patrol boats could be used in swarming attacks against U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> aircraft carriers and other warships. Asked about Chinese opposition to the war games, Mr. Gates <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/robert-m-gates/> said earlier on Tuesday during a visit to a U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> military base in South <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/south-korea/> Korea that "these exercises are off the coast of Korea, not off the coast of China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> ." "We have conducted them in both the West and East Seas, and so there's nothing provocative about them at all," he said. China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> suspended its military ties to the Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> to protest U.S. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-of-america/> arms sales to Taiwan. In May, Beijing blocked Mr. Gates <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/robert-m-gates/> from visiting China <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/china/> . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
