China Law Blog

You're right Dan, China Matter's essay was well worth the read, and it does indeed provide a very plausible analysis. One factor that he left out of his equation though, is North Korea.

I used to live in Yokosuka, by the way, where the Kitty Hawk is stationed. I taught at Kinugasa High School for a year, back in 1999. Some of my American colleages lived on the base, as they were married to Naval personel, and I once toured the base on one of their open days. Japanese locals used to march down the main street of Yokosuka a couple of times a year in protest over the base, and over the presence of the US military on Japanese soil, though I found that the anti-US sentiment in Japan simmered more beneath the surface, unlike in South Korea, where I lived for two years (1996-97) - the Koreans can be very open and passionate when expressing their anti-American feelings. Once the relationship between the two Koreas is solved, America will no longer be able to justify its continued strong miltary presence in Asia, both to themselves, and to the people of Japan and South Korea. But then of course, a united Korea still seems a long way off. So long as the North Korea threat remains, America's military will continued to be tolerated on Japanese and South Korean soil.

I'm not buying any of this - it reeks too much of a conspiracy theory. The fact is, the various organs of the Chinese Communist party have reported differing accounts - depending on who you're hearing it from, it could be misunderstanding, something about the Dalai Lama, or selling weapons to Taiwan. Looking at the facts, the only plausible answer is that China has been conducting naval exercises that week, and didn't want US warships near the exercises. Other US warships were denied the port of call earlier in the week.

Andy - you may of course be right, the Kitty Hawk incident may very well be explained simply by the fact that China had been conducting naval exercises that week, and so they didn't want US warships anywhere near the exercises. But I don't think that this is the only plausible explanation; there may even be a multiple of factors involved that influenced the Chinese decision.

What I found interesting about China Matter's essay, is what he had to say about the general rivalry between the US and China over Pacific waters, in terms of competing for influence in the region. In this respect, China Matters provided what I think is a very sound contextual basis for his analysis. The only problem, as I said, is that he left North and South Korea out of his equation.

@MAJ;

Actually, China did itself a disfavor by not allowing the port visit. If the KH CBG had been allowed to stop over for the holiday, it would not have sailed into the straits during the PLAN's exercises and not been able to passive collect ELINT as well generally irritate the naval crews by daring them to do something.

And further more:
"Once the relationship between the two Koreas is solved, America will no longer be able to justify its continued strong miltary presence in Asia, both to themselves, and to the people of Japan and South Korea."

The US has offered to pull out of SK several times in the past and Seoul always begs us to stay. NK isn't much, but it can still hurt SK pretty badly. SK has been able to focus economic resources on its economy, internal development and MNCs because it didn't have to spend much on a strong military. And Japan needed the US to rebuff the USSR. Japan has a powerful, well trained navy but is very small and would not have stood for long against the Soviet Pacific fleet and air force.

And now that China has been bellowing about lost territories, including 1/3 of northern Korea and numerous little rocks that may sit on top of gas and oil reserves, SK and Japan are building modern destroyer/carriers and indigenous aircraft. Japan's O-class subs are considered some of the best in the world and no one gets to take a close tour of one.
Oh, and Japan snubbed China's request for its Soveremny crew to take a long tour of one of Japan's Aegis cruisers.

Nanheyangrouchuan,

Where is your evidence that the United States has ever offered to "pull out" of South Korea (interesting use of sexual metaphor too, Nanheyangrouchuan, though typical of miltary talk).

I'm getting a little annoyed at rebutal posts that don't get put up, especially rebutting panda huggers like MAJ. Rumsfeld was the latest, but SK has always needed the US to defend itself against NK, which was backed the Russians until the 70s and is still partially supported by China.

As for why the KH CBG and two minesweepers were kept out of HK harbor, here's some new light. The minesweepers stopped in Vietnam for fence-mending.

Blocked warships had paid first visit to Vietnam since ties with U.S. restored
in 1995

East-Asia-Intel.com, December 5, 2007

Lt. Col. Steve DeMoss, left, commanding officer of the U.S. Navy
ship USS Guardian, and Lt. Col. Thomas Shultz, commanding officer of the
U.S.Navy ship USS Patriot, walk in Haiphong, on Nov. 14. Reuters/Kham

Two U.S. Navy warships at the center of a U.S.-China dispute over port
visits to Hong Kong had been in Vietnam days before Beijing turned them away.
The minesweepers, USS Guardian and USS Patriot, made a port call in Hai
Phong City on Nov. 14 and stayed four days.

The visit was covered by local communist-run media. It was the first time
U.S. Navy ships traveled to northern Vietnam since normalization of relations
in 1995.

Officials speculate that China's denial of a request for safe harbor in
Hong Kong was turned down as a way of showing displeasure at Vietnam for
allowing the ships to visit.

Vietnam and China traded diplomatic protests over Chinese naval exercises
at the Paracels Islands, which is claimed by both Vietnam and China.

GertzFile.com GeoStrategy-Direct.com WorldTribune.Com
Copyright © 2007 East West Services, Inc. All rights reserved.

I can't understand why people give so much length to any of small matter.....