• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia

Why do you say he is my good friend? You are not American, it seems.

Obviously I was being facetious, as it appears at the very least Obama is not someone whose policies you are fond of, and it's possible you may actually hate him.

I'm not in your mind, but perhaps you think I'm not American because you don't like what I have to say sometimes. I'm sorry about that, but the things people like Victoria Nuland do have an effect on my life.
 
The United States is too valuable to China so that would never happen - not to mention China and Russia aren't exactly "buddies" either. If Russia was to attack the US China would beat Russia into snot bubbles.. Russia is **** to China and China understands that Russia is being an aggressor at this point in time.
While I do agree that Sino-Russian ties are not nearly as tight as some try to claim, I do not think it is accurate to say they understand "that Russia is being an aggressor" with regards to Ukraine. I think China understands full well that Russia's actions are a response to covert American machinations inside Ukraine. However, for Beijing its concerns are more about how Russia handled the matter. A big part of it is Russia invoking the Kosovo precedent to push Crimean secession.
China would be North Korea if it wasn't for the United States so I have no idea why Obama being the mental reject he is is talking **** to China. Did it ever dawn on the idiot Obama that Chinas economy relies on the US economy?
Here I have to really disagree with you. China would have become a booming market regardless of what the U.S. did as its pursuit of market reforms opened the country up to major growth and the rest of the Western world was already opening up to China when Washington finally got on board. The U.S. also relies on China a great deal and that reliance is only increasing. Eventually, I expect America's relationship to China to be akin to the U.K.'s relationship to the U.S.
The minute China invokes Crimea to annex some islands is the minute we should begin invoking Crimea and call for Tibetans to hold a referendum on independence.
The situations are not equivalent at all. For centuries Tibet has been under Chinese control and recognized as Chinese territory. Only the dispute over the East China Sea has China on somewhat shaky ground, with their claims over the South China Sea having the strongest standing of all claimants and their claims on Taiwan recognized by the United Nations. China is not going to invoke Crimea and the comparison of these disputes to Crimea is nonsensical.
 
China has absolutely no reason to give a damn what the USA says about anything. Its a known fact we have a president who will do absolutely nothing whatever China did.

Every country on earth should obtain any and all possible weapons of mass destruction for their own survival and the survival of their government officials. History is clear. Every time a government has agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction that country or government is attacked by the superpower(s) demanding they disarm first.

Japan has the means to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems very quickly. They should do so. So should S. Korea and every other country in the world.

Obama should be labeled as the president who initiated a new worldwide nuclear arms race - but the media of course won't breathe a word of it. It will just seemingly happen over the next 20 years.
 
Obviously I was being facetious, as it appears at the very least Obama is not someone whose policies you are fond of, and it's possible you may actually hate him.

I'm not in your mind, but perhaps you think I'm not American because you don't like what I have to say sometimes. I'm sorry about that, but the things people like Victoria Nuland do have an effect on my life.

What is this "hate" thing? I hate no one! Perhaps English is not your first language but it is a word you should avoid. Victoria Nuland is a minor functionary.
 
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia

China isn't a very aggressive nation, so I wouldn't worry about them.

Of course I would be opposed to any hostility, however Japan tortured China for 100's of years, of course the majority of present day Japanese had nothing to do with that so they shouldn't be held accountable over Japans former Napoleon complex.

I may go a little off topic here but, given the size of Japan it was simply amazing how aggressive they were with China and the US back in the day... Japan was really aggressive and they got their jollies off torturing the Chinese... I'm shocked China hasn't already taken Japan as compensation for Japan's moonbattery.
 
China has absolutely no reason to give a damn what the USA says about anything. Its a known fact we have a president who will do absolutely nothing whatever China did.

Every country on earth should obtain any and all possible weapons of mass destruction for their own survival and the survival of their government officials. History is clear. Every time a government has agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction that country or government is attacked by the superpower(s) demanding they disarm first.

Japan has the means to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems very quickly. They should do so. So should S. Korea and every other country in the world.

Obama should be labeled as the president who initiated a new worldwide nuclear arms race - but the media of course won't breathe a word of it. It will just seemingly happen over the next 20 years.

I think China gives a **** about it's economy and they wouldn't have one without the US.

The only nation in this fiasco that truly doesn't care is Russa because Putin is a blatant communist and is ideologically similar to Stalin and IMO he is pissed he cant get away with playing Stalin...

I've said it before and I will say it again - Russia (or better yet Putin) want's the USSR back and he wants every resource in Europe.

IMO, If I was the POTUS I would tell China to take care of Putin - I wouldn't even get involved in that nonsense. You better believe China would listen to because the United States is way more valuable to China than Russia.... Russia is a ****hole that builds hotels out of cardboard - they have nothing to offer China... Russia is not important to the global economy - Russia is a novelty at best.
 
I followed most of what you had to say and I would like to respond. But before I do, could you please clarify what you mean by

"They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification."

The word "unification" was poorly chosen. It is the main event here in Germany, but actually it was die implosion of soviet dominance that was the driving event. In the aftermath there was a window of opportunity that the EU missed. During that time the Russians were too occupied with their immediate domestic affairs and were open to all sorts of negotiated solutions. At that time the EU (and NATO) could have closed the issue without too many real problems. Developments since then, Russia is more coordinated and thus powerful and Schröder's gas deal has made Europe quite dependent, have made it much more difficult for the EU to act unilaterally ie against perceived Russian interests in Ukraine. The EU personnel should (and possibly did) know(n) this.
 
What is this "hate" thing? I hate no one! Perhaps English is not your first language but it is a word you should avoid. Victoria Nuland is a minor functionary.

Ok. If you don't hate him that's good. Some people do. I didn't say you actually did, I merely said it's possible. But you have provided clarification, and I will take your word for it.
 
China isn't a very aggressive nation, so I wouldn't worry about them.

Of course I would be opposed to any hostility, however Japan tortured China for 100's of years, of course the majority of present day Japanese had nothing to do with that so they shouldn't be held accountable over Japans former Napoleon complex.

I may go a little off topic here but, given the size of Japan it was simply amazing how aggressive they were with China and the US back in the day... Japan was really aggressive and they got their jollies off torturing the Chinese... I'm shocked China hasn't already taken Japan as compensation for Japan's moonbattery.

China isn't very aggressive, but Taiwan was actually a part of China until Mao defeated the regime that was in China. So they regard Taiwan as part of China, and that is an issue that is a very sore point for them. It leaves them exposed to advanced US weaponry being placed right next to them, so to say the least they are very uncomfortable about it.
 
"They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification."

The word "unification" was poorly chosen. It is the main event here in Germany, but actually it was die implosion of soviet dominance that was the driving event. In the aftermath there was a window of opportunity that the EU missed. During that time the Russians were too occupied with their immediate domestic affairs and were open to all sorts of negotiated solutions. At that time the EU (and NATO) could have closed the issue without too many real problems. Developments since then, Russia is more coordinated and thus powerful and Schröder's gas deal has made Europe quite dependent, have made it much more difficult for the EU to act unilaterally ie against perceived Russian interests in Ukraine. The EU personnel should (and possibly did) know(n) this.

So what do you think the EU/NATO could have done then with regards to Ukraine that would have made a difference to the current situation?
 
So what do you think the EU/NATO could have done then with regards to Ukraine that would have made a difference to the current situation?

The EU could have done nothing. The nations of this world have become so economically interdependent, the downside to war among major trading nations requires greater cost than acting in defense of smaller nations. That is why there has been no major war between the large nations since WWII. Look at the history since. The US, for instance is only interested in acting against smaller, weak nations. We maintain an embargo against Cuba, while trading freely with China, and we simply throw platitudes at Russia as they walk all over the Ukraine's sovereignty. Why? Because the cost of war is cheaper when you are fighting the small nations that cannot compete with you.
 
The EU could have done nothing. The nations of this world have become so economically interdependent, the downside to war among major trading nations requires greater cost than acting in defense of smaller nations. That is why there has been no major war between the large nations since WWII. Look at the history since. The US, for instance is only interested in acting against smaller, weak nations. We maintain an embargo against Cuba, while trading freely with China, and we simply throw platitudes at Russia as they walk all over the Ukraine's sovereignty. Why? Because the cost of war is cheaper when you are fighting the small nations that cannot compete with you.

This is virtually verbatim what was said before World War I, a time when economic interdependence reached it's greatest levels until the present era. Those who have argued that economic interdependence will prevent the outbreak of hostilities have historically been proven sadly mistaken and it is a dangerous position to stake ones foreign policy on.
 
So what do you think the EU/NATO could have done then with regards to Ukraine that would have made a difference to the current situation?

The Ukrainian situation isn't over. It isn't what we could have done--it's what we need to do. Which is increase the size of the upcoming military exercises, accelerate them from July to May, and when they end have the Ukrainian government request they remain. We need to provide a firm security guarantee and create a maximum limit of potential Russian advance.
 
I don't think Obama gives a rat's buttocks about Ukraine or those disputed islands.

I think he just desperately wants something else...a distraction.
 
This is virtually verbatim what was said before World War I, a time when economic interdependence reached it's greatest levels until the present era. Those who have argued that economic interdependence will prevent the outbreak of hostilities have historically been proven sadly mistaken and it is a dangerous position to stake ones foreign policy on.

I totally agree, but I simply point out that now we are seeing the fruits of this labor. The West will not take any military action against Russia until the economic cost is greater than action. Germany is basically the defacto leader of the EU at this point, and until they find that they are threatened more by Russian aggression than their need for oil and gas, they will not act. It is a replay of the buildup to WWII. Germany was marching into France before Europe really woke-up to realize they must take action.
 
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia

The words "US Warns" have become a joke.
 
So what do you think the EU/NATO could have done then with regards to Ukraine that would have made a difference to the current situation?

-Acted in time.
Or having missed that boat
-Made sure the treaty didn't fall over.
 
The Ukrainian situation isn't over. It isn't what we could have done--it's what we need to do. Which is increase the size of the upcoming military exercises, accelerate them from July to May, and when they end have the Ukrainian government request they remain. We need to provide a firm security guarantee and create a maximum limit of potential Russian advance.

I'm not so sure about a firm security guarantee because I really don't think it's worth going to war with Russia over Ukraine. We never should have been at this place in the first place because there was no reason to go all out with Russia over the EU association agreement. That's an important point. However, we are in the mess now, and unfortunately we have to do something because if Russia actually moved troops into Ukraine and there was no response, it could give the impression of weakness. Especially after the heavy handed US incursion into Iraq, a thus embolden Russia could feel the need for other incursions elsewhere to demonstrate that it's status on the world stage is equal to that of the US. But over Ukraine, I personally would do no more that impose some very harsh sanctions and possibly send some weapons. Although with the weapons, I would have to think deeply because there are a lot of right wing, militant extremists who are a part of the government of Ukraine right now and there is no telling what they might do with sophisticated weaponry. I think the proper place to draw security guarantee line right now is NATO members.

That said, what is troubling currently is that Russia says that mercenaries from US security companies are operating with nationalist militants from Right Sector and Ukrainian security forces in Eastern Ukraine. If that is true, then Russia could perceive that the US, through mercenaries, could be attempting to infiltrate Russia itself through Ukraine to provoke unrest and destabilize the Russian government. That would not be an unfounded conclusion because indeed the US did use mercenaries in Afghanistan, and I think is is highly likely that those mercenaries were used to help facilitate and encourage those groups in Afghanistan such as the TTP that were carrying out attacks in Pakistan aimed at destabilizing the government. The President of Pakistan, Asif Zadari, husband of the slain Benazir Bhutto, told US envoy Zalmay Khalizad that he believed the US was behind a number of attacks inside of Pakistan. He said the purpose of the attacks was to destabilize Pakistan so that the US could seize it's nuclear weapons. So it's possible that US mercenaries could infiltrate Russia through Ukraine and foment unrest in Russia to destabilize Putin's regime. We are likely already doing so through NGOs in Russia, so while it's not a known fact, such a scenario is a possibility. Not only that, but right wing extremists like the Right Sector could even carry out terrorists attacks in Russia using Ukraine as a staging ground. IF that's the case, and Putin senses this as a threat, then it would become highly likely that he would send troops into Ukraine, thus escalating tensions. If we had a firm security guarantee with Ukraine, this would be very unfortunate because direct confrontation between Russian troops and US military personnel would become likely. That would be very, very unfortunate.

Now one could say that's all the more reason to give a security guarantee to Ukraine because that would reduce the possibility of a Russian incursion. But I think that given the very close proximity of Ukraine to Russia and the close historical ties the Russia has with the people in eastern Ukraine, we would be playing a very dangerous game of Russian roulette, pun intended, and I see no good reason to take such a risk over Ukraine. Again, the countries of NATO is the proper place to draw that line.
 
I'm not so sure about a firm security guarantee because I really don't think it's worth going to war with Russia over Ukraine. We never should have been at this place in the first place because there was no reason to go all out with Russia over the EU association agreement. That's an important point. However, we are in the mess now, and unfortunately we have to do something because if Russia actually moved troops into Ukraine and there was no response, it could give the impression of weakness. Especially after the heavy handed US incursion into Iraq, a thus embolden Russia could feel the need for other incursions elsewhere to demonstrate that it's status on the world stage is equal to that of the US. But over Ukraine, I personally would do no more that impose some very harsh sanctions and possibly send some weapons. Although with the weapons, I would have to think deeply because there are a lot of right wing, militant extremists who are a part of the government of Ukraine right now and there is no telling what they might do with sophisticated weaponry. I think the proper place to draw security guarantee line right now is NATO members.

That said, what is troubling currently is that Russia says that mercenaries from US security companies are operating with nationalist militants from Right Sector and Ukrainian security forces in Eastern Ukraine. If that is true, then Russia could perceive that the US, through mercenaries, could be attempting to infiltrate Russia itself through Ukraine to provoke unrest and destabilize the Russian government. That would not be an unfounded conclusion because indeed the US did use mercenaries in Afghanistan, and I think is is highly likely that those mercenaries were used to help facilitate and encourage those groups in Afghanistan such as the TTP that were carrying out attacks in Pakistan aimed at destabilizing the government. The President of Pakistan, Asif Zadari, husband of the slain Benazir Bhutto, told US envoy Zalmay Khalizad that he believed the US was behind a number of attacks inside of Pakistan. He said the purpose of the attacks was to destabilize Pakistan so that the US could seize it's nuclear weapons. So it's possible that US mercenaries could infiltrate Russia through Ukraine and foment unrest in Russia to destabilize Putin's regime. We are likely already doing so through NGOs in Russia, so while it's not a known fact, such a scenario is a possibility. Not only that, but right wing extremists like the Right Sector could even carry out terrorists attacks in Russia using Ukraine as a staging ground. IF that's the case, and Putin senses this as a threat, then it would become highly likely that he would send troops into Ukraine, thus escalating tensions. If we had a firm security guarantee with Ukraine, this would be very unfortunate because direct confrontation between Russian troops and US military personnel would become likely. That would be very, very unfortunate.

Now one could say that's all the more reason to give a security guarantee to Ukraine because that would reduce the possibility of a Russian incursion. But I think that given the very close proximity of Ukraine to Russia and the close historical ties the Russia has with the people in eastern Ukraine, we would be playing a very dangerous game of Russian roulette, pun intended, and I see no good reason to take such a risk over Ukraine. Again, the countries of NATO is the proper place to draw that line.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I emphatically believe it is in our interests to be as assertive and dedicated as possible to thwart Russian efforts to frustrate Ukraine's shift towards the EU and NATO. The tack that this administration (begun in part by the last) with Russia could not be more wrong. Russia is not a partner or a potential partner, at least not as its government is currently constituted. This rivalry extends from Europe, to the Caucuses, to Central Asia, and less intensely around the globe.

Allowing Russia to sink it's tendrils into Ukraine again and running the very real risk of a Russo-sphere that extends to the periphery of Central Europe is unthinkable. It would threaten the European experiment in innumerable ways. It would expose countries like Romania, Moldova, Hungary, and Serbia to the beguiling temptations of shifting back into a Russian orbit, it would endanger if not annihilate the credibility of US security guarantees which could lead to flash points in the Baltic (where you genuinely have anti-Russian policies unlike the fictitious pretexts in Ukraine) especially in Estonia. It would embolden Russia to take advantage of future possible pretexts for further intrusion in Georgia and Azerbaijan (vis a vis Armenia/Nagorno).

Finally it critically endangers the global credibility of the US alliance structure and our willingness to assume a defensive posture over frontline states and in potential hot spots. There is so much on the line in Ukraine even if people would prefer to stick their heads in the sand about it.

As for the rest of your point... it's baseless. There is no reliable evidence whatsoever that US 'mercenaries' are operating in Ukraine nor does that make any sense. Or that we used mercenaries to support the Pakistani Taliban. Those are just silly conspiracy-isms. It's also nothing more than a propaganda point (abetted by a colossal misunderstanding of Ukrainian history and politics) to call the government in Kiev a bastion of right wing extremists.
 
I think we have a fundamental disagreement. I emphatically believe it is in our interests to be as assertive and dedicated as possible to thwart Russian efforts to frustrate Ukraine's shift towards the EU and NATO. The tack that this administration (begun in part by the last) with Russia could not be more wrong. Russia is not a partner or a potential partner, at least not as its government is currently constituted. This rivalry extends from Europe, to the Caucuses, to Central Asia, and less intensely around the globe.

Allowing Russia to sink it's tendrils into Ukraine again and running the very real risk of a Russo-sphere that extends to the periphery of Central Europe is unthinkable. It would threaten the European experiment in innumerable ways. It would expose countries like Romania, Moldova, Hungary, and Serbia to the beguiling temptations of shifting back into a Russian orbit, it would endanger if not annihilate the credibility of US security guarantees which could lead to flash points in the Baltic (where you genuinely have anti-Russian policies unlike the fictitious pretexts in Ukraine) especially in Estonia. It would embolden Russia to take advantage of future possible pretexts for further intrusion in Georgia and Azerbaijan (vis a vis Armenia/Nagorno).

Indeed we have a disagreement because I feel that our efforts to thwart Russia in Ukraine do not lead to more security for Europe, nor ourselves, nor the rest of the world as well. Why is this so? Because what you have failed to calculate is that Ukraine is a vital security interest for Russia. It is on their near border and Crimea in particular is the center of the Russian navy. For Russia Ukraine, especially Crimea, is a do or die situation. For us this region is not a high vital interest, because a Russia that has merely loaned some money to Ukraine simply means that Ukraine would have a government in which our leverage would still be substantial, but not as strong as Russia. It appears that you would have us to believe that Russia loaning money to Ukraine would somehow magically recreate the Soviet empire, but you offer no evidence to substantiate this claim. For Russia to do that, they would have to actually occupy Ukraine and take over it's military apparatus, and quite frankly although Russia could defeat Ukraine militarily, they would be very hard pressed to actually maintain control of the country. It would bleed Russia to death trying to do so. Therefore your assertion is baseless, and quite frankly it resembles the paranoid warnings of a non-existent mushroom cloud that people like Dick Cheney so foolishly put before the world to our great embarrassment.

The reality of the situation is that there is a very big difference in the downside risks for us in Ukraine with regards to the way that we handled the European associate agreement, and those of Russia. On one side Russia is faced with a do or die situation, on the other we are simply faced with a situation in which our leverage is reduced. So to have put Russia in a situation like that was not very good strategic thinking because it forced Russia to play their hand in Crimea. By doing so, it has created a front in which military confrontation between ourselves and Russia is substantially more likely. Not only that but it has totally put and end to any notion of the view that Gorbachev had when the Soviet empire broke up of a new cooperative thinking between ourselves and Russia. The problem with your position is that you appear to believe that any regime that does not share the same views and values that we have, or that disagrees with what our ability to dictate policy to other nations should be, is a regime that is highly hostile and needs to be eradicated. This view is so extreme that even someone as benign as Aristide, in poor little Haiti, is a threat that must be removed. In that case, there was no more than an ideological difference of opinion with regards to how the resources of the government should be used to help it's citizens. But to persons like you, that is a grave threat to US interests, and therefore he was removed from office. It's totally ridiculous and unsustainable because the US simply does not have the proper resources to project it's influence all over the globe in this way.

Finally it critically endangers the global credibility of the US alliance structure and our willingness to assume a defensive posture over frontline states and in potential hot spots. There is so much on the line in Ukraine even if people would prefer to stick their heads in the sand about it.

No it does not endanger our global credibility because we do not a security guarantee with Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. If it was you would have a point, but that simply is not the case. So there is no sticking of heads in the sand, because we have not said we would defend Ukraine in case of attack. Again you have conjured up a fictitious mushroom cloud that does not exist except for in your mind.

As for the rest of your point... it's baseless. There is no reliable evidence whatsoever that US 'mercenaries' are operating in Ukraine nor does that make any sense.
I can't say it is a fact at this point, but Russia has said that it's the case and it does make sense that we would do so because it would fit into a pattern of past behavior on the part of the US government.

Or that we used mercenaries to support the Pakistani Taliban. Those are just silly conspiracy-isms. It's also nothing more than a propaganda point (abetted by a colossal misunderstanding of Ukrainian history and politics) to call the government in Kiev a bastion of right wing extremists.

Well we sure used mercenaries in Afghanistan and there is plenty of evidence to support that. Even Erik Prince has stated openly that we did. And as far as our support of the TTP, there is evidence to support that is well and it came directly from the words of high ranking members of the TTP who became disgusted with that situation. So it's not a silly notion at all.
 
Last edited:
If this went on in public during a visit that was supposed to demonstrate closer military ties, one can only wonder what is said in private.


The defence chiefs of China and the United States yesterday clashed over Beijing’s handling of regional territorial disputes, as they discussed ways to improve military ties.

On the second day of his official visit to China, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Beijing does not have the right to unilaterally establish an air defence zone over a large swathe of the East China Sea, including disputed islands controlled by Japan.

“That adds to tensions, misunderstandings and could eventually add to, and eventually get to, dangerous conflict,” said Mr Hagel.

He added that the US will protect Japan in a dispute with China.

In a forceful response, China’s Defence Minister Chang Wanquan said China will not take the initiative to stir up trouble with Japan, but Beijing is ready to use its military if needed to safeguard its territory.

“We will make no compromise, no concession, no trading, not even a tiny ... violation is allowed. The Chinese military can assemble as soon as summoned, fight any battle and win.”

He accused Japan of “confusing the right with the wrong” in asserting control over the disputed islands, which “China has indisputable sovereignty over”.

He also warned that the US must stay vigilant against Japan’s actions and not be permissive and supportive of Tokyo.

Mr Chang railed against the government of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whom Mr Hagel met in Tokyo last weekend.

“It is Japan who is being provocative against China,” Mr Chang said at a news conference after talks with Mr Hagel.

The Chinese minister also chided another US ally, the Philippines, for “disguising itself as a victim” and renewed Beijing’s opposition to Manila’s pursuit of international arbitration in its festering territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

China claims 90 per cent of the 3.5 million sq km South China Sea, where the Philippines, along with other countries, stake claims.

Mr Hagel, who met the Philippine Defence Minister last week, said he raised US concerns in Beijing over the tension in the South and East China seas. He cautioned that no countries should resort to “intimidation, coercion or aggression to advance its claims”.

“The Philippines and Japan are long-time allies of the US. We have mutual self-defence treaties with each of those two countries,” Mr Hagel said. “And we are fully committed to those treaty obligations.”

The exchange punctuated a visit that US defence officials had sought to present as a long-awaited deepening of military relations between the two countries.

Here's some more of Chang's remarks

"The territorial sovereignty issue is China’s core interest. We will make no compromise or concession. No trading, not even an iota of violation is allowed. China has indisputable sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and their adjacent waters and the South China Sea. China stands ready to resolve disputes with countries directly involved," Chang Wanquan said.

"All parties should refrain from provocative actions in the use of intimidation, coercion or aggression to advance their claims," Chuck Hagel said.

Washington has repeatedly said it does not take position on disputes, including the Diaoyu Islands. But Hagel says the Diaoyus fall under the protection of a US-Japan security treaty.

"We think the review of the self-defense aspect their constitution is right and important, as a great power, Japan has the responsibilities. We support that review and the decision the Japanese people make,” Chuck Hagel said.

"Complete responsibility for all the problems rests with Japan. We hope the US could stay vigilant against Japan’s actions and not tolerate and abet evils that could bring disaster to all,” Chang Wanquan said.
 
This is also of interest

China's defense ministry expressed anger on Wednesday after the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to authorize the sale to Taiwan of four second-hand U.S. warships, saying the United States had ignored Chinese protests.

China and Taiwan have been ruled separately since defeated Nationalist forces fled to the island at the end of a civil war with the communists in 1949. China has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control.

The U.S. legislation also reaffirmed the Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates the United States to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of an attack, and was enacted in 1979 when Washington severed formal ties with the island in favor of recognizing the People's Republic of China in Beijing.

China's defense ministry said it was resolutely opposed to all arms sales to Taiwan, saying it was an interference in China's internal affairs.

"The U.S. side ignored China's strong opposition, and insisted on passing the bill pushing weapons sales to Taiwan," the ministry said in a statement on its website .

"This act is highly damaging, and doubtless will seriously interfere in and damage the development of Sino-U.S. military ties and the peaceful development of cross-strait relations."

The Taiwan issue concerns China's territorial integrity and core interests, the ministry added.

"China demands that the U.S. side fully recognize the high sensitivity and serious harm of this bill, earnestly respect China's core interests and important concerns ... and stop selling weapons to Taiwan."

China angered by latest U.S. arms sale plan for Taiwan | Reuters
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom