Posted on 01/27/2003 7:36:05 AM PST by conservativecorner
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
China has enacted a new decree extending its control over a 200-mile economic zone from its coast that Bush administration officials say could lead to another clash with the United States over freedom of navigation.
"This is a Chinese domestic law that is inconsistent with international law and the law that we follow," said a defense official.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Yes but is electronic evesdropping like the Pueblo an economic or non economic activity ?
***WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "CHINA ENACTS LAW EXTENDING ITS CONTROL" by Bill Gertz (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "China has enacted a new decree extending its control over a 200-mile economic zone from its coast that Bush administration officials say could lead to another clash with the United States over freedom of navigation.") (012703)
DefenseLINK.mil: "Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz , Frontiers of Freedom, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, Thursday, October 24, 2002." (SPEECH Question & Answer Session SNIPPET: "DepSec Wolfowitz: I think what it points out, and I think it should be a reminder to people on every side -- I was about to say both sides of this debate, but I find it a multi-sided debate. Whatever position one holds, one I think should recognize the potential for things to develop in ways that we don't anticipate, and the fact that if you stop and think about it, that concern that I mentioned which is a real one -- As I said, we demonstrated it in 1947 and we aren't the only ones who have thought about it, is something that requires thinking about missile defense in yet another difficult way. One could build the best possible defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles and miss that possibility. I think as long as there are countries out there -- and there are -- who are as clearly determined as they are and they evidence it among other things, I mentioned the amount of resources they devote to being able to attack us. We need to be thinking ahead of them. We need to be thinking out of the box. We need to remember that there was a time when we said, I believe it was March of 1962, that it was inconceivable the Soviet Union would put missiles in Cuba. I believe in the 1980s when Saudi Arabia acquired long-range ballistic missiles from the Peoples Republic of China it took us completely by surprise. We think a relatively harmless surprise, but nonetheless a surprise.")
stepping back in time...NYI.edu - GLOBAL BEAT: "U.S.-CHINA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: ANNOTATED TIMELINE 1980- JANUARY 1998" by Bates Gill (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "1988 March - Reports reveal that China has transferred approximately 36 CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia. This is first transfer of missiles of this range and capability within the developing world; the missiles were originally part of China's strategic arsenal, but Saudi and Chinese officials assure that the missiles will not be nuclear-armed. July - In Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz expresses his concern over Chinese missile and weapons exports to Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.") (June 22, 1998)
substitute US with China, that could be an interesting policy.
Treaty? ChiComs don't need no stinkin' treaty.
Asian bully dittos.
Axis of Evil/Anus of Evil bump.
China wishes to create an Incident while we are otherwise involved.
Nuke Beijing. Offer them a free shot at Nancy Pelosi in return.
Or send Bill Richardson--duct-taped to a second nuke: Shanghai.
The fastest way to stop all of this is pull Hillary's Secret Service protection.
She would then discipline her donors.
Its one more thing on the long list of conflicting interests. Its also one more thing that our "engagement" seeks to prevent.
If anything did happen most likely it would end up ultimately swept under the rug. I say we should be ready to shoot first, just in case, and make them sweep it under the rug instead of us.
It very well could lead to a clash. That chance is there whether or not we are prepared for it or not. That is the difference. Disarming will embolden them. Arming will let them know to not start anything. Detterence.
The only way to prevent conflict is to stay completely out of their "zone" and let them dictate everything we do. Unless we do that, we have to manage the risk.
Not being ready does not lessen the threat. If they know we will shoot before they fly off the handle, it might be in their (and our) best interests to keep them from flying off in the first place. How many schoolyard bullies pick on the bad @ss (but generally nice guy) of the campus? The bully might want to do something, but the specter of an ass whoopin, or at least someone willing to give him a go for it might change his mind.
They very well might be getting ready to shoot. But if they know we will shoot back, that might change their minds about pulling the trigger.
The might eye that big stick we are carrying and avoid a fight.
Wrong. China's policy has the potential to start a large scale war, as does your policy of appeasement.
It's time to revoke the MFN and get the Chinese out of our colleges and labs. Let's see what they can come up with when they can no longer steal expertise.
I'm with you, maui--sink any ship that threatens us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.