Military of China, force comment.
Military of China, force comment.

The article said China’s ocean-going navy to build a strong need to invest a lot of manpower and resources, not in China’s development interests.
Chinese naval ships in recent years, serving a large number of new main battle, but the gap compared with the U.S. Navy is still very evident

LONDON July 21 news: U.S. Naval War College, Washington’s China researcher Bide Deng recent Senate hearing on China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea and East China Sea and its naval modernization requirements impact on the U.S. released a research report. He said China’s recent and not likely to build a strong mid-ocean navy, because it requires a lot of manpower and resources, not in China’s development interests.

Denton pointed out that China seems to think they will reach a long sought to control the South China Sea. The reason it enhanced in the South China Sea area of ??operations for U.S. Navy ships, perhaps due to China that could hinder its declaration of sovereignty over the island and those who support the U.S. Navy will be the freedom of the seas and the U.S. regional partners and allies of the United States politicians . Denton said: “I think China has the latter as the most likely to undermine their influence and impact of the object, especially in challenging economic times and the country’s military concerns are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan wars time, in my view, this is China’s recent actions to block the United States in the region, one of the reasons: as long as the United States aware of the political will to continue active operations in the South China Sea, they must confront head on the strength of the U.S. Navy to achieve their target, while indirect way, they can effectively weaken the U.S. Navy and reached the same purpose. “

Denton said some careful analysts and academics have suggested that the Chinese military of the United States guess will determine the positive declaration of sovereignty in the South China Sea. He said China’s actions sometimes with a certain opportunism color. However, the South China Sea power power (power dynamics) of the changes that have occurred recently, not doping any opportunistic factors, but the Chinese several years of research, development and investment in the waters of East Asia to challenge the U.S. military the right to use the necessary technology results. U.S. Naval War College Strategic Studies Associate Professor 莱尔戈尔茨 Tan (Lyle J Goldstein) and William Murray (William Murray) had their co article said, China is steadily improving its submarine and underwater mine mine-clearance capacity. In addition, the Naval War College Andrew Erickson and the Rand Corporation researcher David Young (David Yang) is also the co-author of the article said, China is developing its anti-ship ballistic missile programs. They pointed out that, in addition to changing the balance of military power, China also continued to carry out actions to undermine the United States naval operations in the South China Sea, the legitimacy and legality, and which seems to force China to change regional politics (political dynamics) carried out a kind of attempt.

Denton pointed out that U.S. experts have been studying China’s “three new war” theory, that the legal battle, battle of public opinion and psychological warfare. These three actions are the focus of the international community and domestic, to establish and promote China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea islands, the legitimacy of military action to control the entire authority of the South China Sea. In fact, in a few years ago, “People’s Navy” newspaper described the legal battle had the intent that “before the appearance of any actual problems, identify them carefully” in order “to provide a legitimate excuse for military action.” , and “efforts to fight within the legally legitimate initiative”, to “protect national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Therefore, these three new combat methods are: the case without the use of armed forces, through the public about China’s gradual growth due to the military power and the potential threat perceptions, to achieve strategic objectives.

Denton said that China now seems to be seeking help to solve the issue of sovereignty over the South China Sea islands opportunity. Denton said: “In my opinion, the current bilateral talks on the South China Sea dispute has been no progress.” He said in 2008, following the second meeting, the Steering Committee for Bilateral Cooperation and Vietnam issued a joint statement, the two sides “have agreed to negotiated settlement of disputes, to protect the peace and stability in the South China Sea. ” However, this statement is still controversial: China still has repeatedly stressed its South China Sea islands “indisputable sovereignty”, including China in May this year submitted to the United Nations for the Philippines and Vietnam sovereignty operations conducted respond to the statement.

Denton believes that with the active involvement of the United States, Asia-Pacific countries could at least engage in multilateral discussions to control friction, prevent claim of sovereignty, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf requirements, safety requirements and right-of-competition update . This discussion may help the United States made it clear that its support for “the South China Sea code of conduct” relating to the provisions of the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes, which would give the U.S. attacks in the country in support of its friends and allies to power. Similarly, countries in the region should try to restrain myself. As a result, China may be a historic opportunity to make proof of China’s military build is really the part of policy of peaceful development and China is indeed the intention of its neighboring countries is also a well-intentioned.

Denton said, on the latter point, there may be some skepticism Asia-Pacific countries, particularly Japan. Indeed, the Chinese academic institutions and analysts working on the development of Chinese blue-water navy should strive to expand the capacity of the heated discussion. However, Denton said he saw no indication that Chinese policy makers over the medium term to build a control that can challenge the U.S. Navy naval sea power. China’s military in the past 20 years rapid development – especially in a small fleet was sent to China to support the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy operations – the most worrying is that this may indicate that Beijing will one day break only in the East Asian development objectives of the zone defense at sea and eventually challenge U.S. global hegemony. However, Denton is based on three grounds that this would not happen:

First, China can not build a large, ocean-going navy, as a fundamental part of the mainland countries of China, said, will be too much attention and resources on the control over the global ocean is not consistent with its geo-strategic interests, especially the existence of a super-world country and be able to provide marine services for free time. Second, China is facing many internal politics, political and demographic challenges, the remainder of this century, China will be more resources and political attention to these issues. Finally, if China intends to use its growing ability to challenge the sea in the East China Sea and South American waters other than the power, then a first indicator is his point of view of international law of the sea from the transfer of anti-intervention to intervention, because development of international law are not authorized to use sea power is a thankless thing.

Denton pointed out that, paradoxically, will have a different understanding of the international law of the sea as a distinction between land power and sea power in the fundamental interests of management costs and acceptable, may be more in line with U.S. interests. However, he also said that this does not mean that the U.S. should give up its right to gain access to the world ocean sea lanes – to perform with international peace and security-related tasks or to protect the oceans from non-traditional threat-related tasks, it must gain access to World Ocean sea lanes – the power of international law, values ??or opinions.

Denton said, at present, 157 members of United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, there are nearly 140 countries recognized by the United States to the international law of the sea view, but the remaining countries have had the same views with China, that coastal states the right to restrict foreign troops in military operations within its exclusive economic zone. In fact, China’s point of view of international law of some of its neighbors also has a certain appeal. Although the government to accept foreign military forces in the tradition of the exclusive economic zone of freedom, but from the Philippines, Malaysia and representatives of other countries sometimes privately expressed support for China’s view, this is because this view will contain an increasingly powerful China’s naval forces. Denton said that this disturbing phenomenon that U.S. regional partners also felt the power of change within the South China Sea, these countries may need more security to ensure that the United States remains committed to the Asia-Pacific regional security commitments, and maintain maritime presence in the Asia Pacific region’s advantage.

Denton said, for the countries of East Asia and other regions, for military purposes to protect freedom of navigation in the tradition of great significance. An anti-arc region is close to the Arabian Sea to the Sea of ??Japan from the southern continent of Asia. In still officially holds against the freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone and outside the traditional military view of the small number of countries, most countries concentrated in the coastal areas of southern Asia, across the world some of the most important sea lines of communication. In this region, Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Malaysia, China and North Korea still leave the coastal countries claim exclusive economic zones of other countries have some control over the military activities of the law. Vietnam can also be added to this list, although the delineation of the baseline of their choice – and not claim exclusive economic control – as a legitimate means of its anti-intervention. In addition, there are some countries not listed from scholars and officials sometimes the default anti-intervention views. To support its legal point of view, some of these countries have established a powerful navy, other countries have been actively seeking nuclear power or a similar routine with the Chinese anti-intervention techniques. (Compiled: Spring)