China angered by new U.S. military strategy report

(From Reuters)

China’s Foreign Ministry expressed anger on Friday after the Pentagon’s updated National Military Strategy slammed Chinese claims in the South China Sea as aggressive and inconsistent with international law.

The Pentagon report said China has been raising "tension" in the Asia-Pacific region

The Pentagon report said China has been raising “tension” in the Asia-Pacific region

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the United States was pushing unfounded exaggerations.

“We express dissatisfaction and opposition towards the U.S. side’s report’s irrational exaggerations of China’s threat,” she told a daily news briefing.

“We have already clearly explained our stance on the issue of construction on islands and reefs in the South China Sea several times,” Hua added.

“We believe that the U.S. should abandon their Cold War mentality.”

In its report released on Wednesday, Pentagon said China has become increasingly assertive in the South China Sea, building artificial islands in areas where the Philippines and other countries have rival claims, sparking alarm regionally and in Washington.

“China’s actions are adding tension to the Asia-Pacific region,” it said making specific reference to China’s “aggressive land reclamation efforts” in the South China Sea.

“The probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is assessed to be low but growing,” it further said.

Turning to Russia, it said Moscow has “repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve its goals.”

“Russia’s military actions are undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces.”

“Today’s global security environment is the most unpredictable I have seen in 40 years of service,” said General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in presenting the report.

Moreover, other military powers are taking advantage of the rapid spread of sophisticated technologies to diminish the technological edge the United States once enjoyed, he said.

“Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield,” he said. “They will have increasing implications to the U.S. homeland.”

The spread of advanced technologies around the globe is eroding competitive advantages long held by the United States, such as early warning and precision strike, the report said.

The report highlights the growing nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities of Iran and North Korea, which are on a list of countries that pose “serious security concerns” to America and its allies.

Violent extremist groups like the Islamic State are coupling the use of readily available war-making technologies with their radical ideologies to destabilize entire countries and regions, the report said.

“Global disorder” is on the rise, it said.

Despite these growing threats, America’s military remains the most formidable worldwide, with an annual budget of about $600 billion that dwarfs that of any other nation.

(With reporting by AFP and dpa)



Categories: Asia Times News & Features

Tags: ,

  • Mr. Bernard Wijeyasingha

    The Monroe Doctrine of the US cannot be used as some template across the world. It no longer has any relevance even in the New world. the ludicrous stand by the US Pentagon is most apparent by the rapid development of relations between Havana and Moscow.
    When Putin was in Brazil for the BRICS summit he visited Cuba to cement a deal where half of Cuba’s debt of 90 billion owed to Russia is forgiven with the other half to be invested in Cuba. In addition Russia and Cuba have agreed to develop a naval port for Russian submarines. Putin has signed similar deals with Nicaragua and Venezuela. The best Washington D.C. did was to open up relations with Cuba. Putin did this while not forgiving the 16 billion dollars worth owed by Ukraine to Russia.
    When Crimea and Russia merged (not annexed for the people of Crimea voted to join Russia), Russia also annexed the sea of Okhotsk to her east. She used the UN as a reason to do so, After Moscow annexed that sea to her eastern coast, she summarily kicked out all the international companies mining in that mineral rich sea. It is claimed China will follow suit in stating her claim on the South China sea, using the Russian template to do so.
    Finally if Washington D.C. does not have the legitimate case to stop Russia from building naval ports in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, she has less claim on the South China sea. In fact China can easily make an agreement with Venezuela and her massive offshore oil field, which holds more oil than Saudi Arabia, to drill in the maritime territory of Venezuela and the US can say nothing about it.,

  • The_Spanish_Inquisition

    More propaganda from Reuters

    people in Asia either have short memories, or a lack of self-respect. Over the past 35 years – since the Vietnam War – we have seen armed intervention and US “military advisers” in Grenada, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Myanmar, Indonesia (East Timor) and Ukraine. We have seen NATO expand up to Russia’s border, “Air-Sea Battle” and the Pivot to Asia, and B-52 bombers flown into China’s ADIZ to prove the “freedom of navigation”. The peace-loving Japanese are now revoking their defence-only constitutional ban on military expansionism; and the Filipinos are expanding their territorial claims beyond the boundaries set out in their own Constitution and internal laws by running ships aground on coral reefs and stationing armed marines on them. And we have of course seen militarization of remote islands in distant Oceans in defiance of explicit UN judgements outlawing them: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/un-ruling-raises-hope-of-return-for-exiled-chagos-islanders

    During this period how many sovereign nations has China invaded or destabilized? How many new islands has China asserted a claim to which were not already part of its territory under the US-sponsored Nationalist regime in the period 1947 – 9? How many countries has China imposed economic sanctions on? How many genocidal regimes has China given nuclear weapon technology to?*** And how many Black teenagers do Chinese police execute every week? How many Chinese Assanges and Snowdens are there seeking asylum overseas? And how many Chinese-sponsored “Colour Revolutions” have been fomented by the National Endowment for Communism or Radio Free China / Voice of China? Have you ever seen a Chinese Ambassador to the USA doing this kind of thing? – http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2011/02/24/u-s-ambassador-john-huntsman-caught-on-video-teased-by-chinese-at-jasmine-revolution-rally-at-wangfujing/

    There is surely some slight hypocrisy evident here: so why does Reuters report only one side of the story?

    *** In addition to arming Israel with nuclear weapons in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Donald Rumsfeld was on the Board of the company which supplied nuclear technology to North Korea http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/rumsfeld-was-on-abb-board-during-deal-with-north-korea/3176922

  • Maria Adams

    International law? What about when the US itself breaks international law??: #1) LAW Professor Matthew Happold (commenting on the US’s false use of UNR 678 & UNR 1441, to justify 2003 Iraq invasion: (cut & paste of Professor’s words are in brackets): [In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687.], and [Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal.]. #2) LAW Professor Marjorie Cohn testified that the US is legally bound to the UN Charter, and that the 2003 Iraq invasion was illegal (since it signed & ratified the Charter), in the case of 1st Lt Watada, as reported by Political Affairs magazine, (cut & paste): [Cohn argued that the United States has not only endorsed the Nuremburg Principles, but also has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them legally binding according to Article 6 of the Constitution: “All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” ]. #3) from that same article: [University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle, former United Nations Undersecretary Denis Halliday, and retired Army Colonel Ann Wright. They all supported Watada’s claim that the Iraq War is illegal.].
    **
    What else, Oh, fools like to say: “But the UN is corrupt, they denied the US the logical approval”…My answer:

    #1)Senator Bob Graham (one of the very few Senators who read the
    National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq) said that the report didn’t
    logically support the notion that Iraq and acquired WMD capacity.
    Therefore, if even a US Senator says the Intelligence doesn’t logically
    support the President W’s claim that Iraq had WMDs, then how can you
    blame anyone else for echoing Senator Grahams conclusion (including the
    UN Security Council)…Oh, and btw, most of the very few Senators who
    voted FOR the war later said it was a mistake to do so (Jonathan
    Edwards), or have stupidly lied about it, saying that they voted to
    avoid war (stupid Biden). SOURCE: “Records: Senators who OK’d war didn’t
    read key report”, CNN.
    #2) if the US really thought the UN Security
    Council was playing unfair obstructionist games, and therefore
    illegitimate, the US always had the option of withdrawing from the UN,
    if it didn’t want to be legally bound by its rules, BUT, the US didn’t
    withdraw!

  • Maria Adams

    International law? What about when the US itself breaks international law??: #1) LAW Professor Matthew Happold (commenting on the US’s false use of UNR 678 & UNR 1441, to justify 2003 Iraq invasion: (cut & paste of Professor’s words are in brackets): [In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687.], and [Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal.]. #2) LAW Professor Marjorie Cohn testified that the US is legally bound to the UN Charter, and that the 2003 Iraq invasion was illegal (since it signed & ratified the Charter), in the case of 1st Lt Watada, as reported by Political Affairs magazine, (cut & paste): [Cohn argued that the United States has not only endorsed the Nuremburg Principles, but also has ratified both the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, making them legally binding according to Article 6 of the Constitution: “All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” ]. #3) from that same article: [University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle, former United Nations Undersecretary Denis Halliday, and retired Army Colonel Ann Wright. They all supported Watada’s claim that the Iraq War is illegal.].
    **
    What else, Oh, fools like to say: “But the UN is corrupt, they denied the US the logical approval”…My answer:

    #1)Senator Bob Graham (one of the very few Senators who read the
    National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq) said that the report didn’t
    logically support the notion that Iraq and acquired WMD capacity.
    Therefore, if even a US Senator says the Intelligence doesn’t logically
    support the President W’s claim that Iraq had WMDs, then how can you
    blame anyone else for echoing Senator Grahams conclusion (including the
    UN Security Council)…Oh, and btw, most of the very few Senators who
    voted FOR the war later said it was a mistake to do so (Jonathan
    Edwards), or have stupidly lied about it, saying that they voted to
    avoid war (stupid Biden). SOURCE: “Records: Senators who OK’d war didn’t
    read key report”, CNN.
    #2) if the US really thought the UN Security
    Council was playing unfair obstructionist games, and therefore
    illegitimate, the US always had the option of withdrawing from the UN,
    if it didn’t want to be legally bound by its rules, BUT, the US didn’t
    withdraw!

  • Rafasa Arandas

    Why can’t we all just have peace? Most Americans do NOT regard either Russia or China as enemies.