U.S. Protests China's Denial Of Navy Ship

[Jack Ray]

FYI



U.S. Protests China's Denial Of Navy Ship
By Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writer
Washington Post
November 29, 2007
Pg. 21

The Pentagon issued a formal protest to China yesterday over Beijing's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk or any of the aircraft carrier's accompanying ships into the port of Hong Kong last week.

David Sedney, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, summoned Maj. Gen. Zhao Ning, the Chinese defense attache in Washington, to the Pentagon for half an hour to make the complaint.

The protest expressed "deep regret and concerns with China's denial of diplomatic clearances" for the Kitty Hawk carrier strike group and two U.S. mine sweepers, the Patriot and Guardian, which were denied safe harbor days earlier as a storm approached and were forced to refuel using a tanker at sea.

"The denial of the USS Patriot and USS Guardian requests to refuel and avoid severe weather is contrary to commonly accepted international maritime safety protocols," the protest stated. "Such cancellations run counter to our joint interest in positively developing our military-to-military relations."

The Chinese government has provided no "satisfactory explanation" for the denial of access to Hong Kong, where many sailors' families had traveled in anticipation of a Thanksgiving reunion, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said yesterday at a news conference. The Chinese attache agreed to relay the message to Beijing but offered no further response, he said.

"It's baffling to the extent that these port calls into Hong Kong have been taking place . . . for decades," Morrell said, adding that in the past such denials occurred during tense relations between the two nations.

Port calls were suspended, for example, after a U.S. bomber struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and in the wake of the mid-air collision in 2001 between a Chinese fighter and U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane, whose crew was detained by Chinese authorities after a harrowing landing on Hainan Island.

Asked whether Beijing had acted in response to a recent U.S. upgrading of Patriot missiles in Taiwan, and to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates not notifying Chinese leaders about the move during a visit to China this month, Morrell said he had heard no such explanation. "It wasn't . . . incumbent upon Secretary Gates to relay that information," he said.

During the Gates trip, leaders discussed stepping up military cooperation and exchanges, and agreed to establish a defense hotline between Beijing and Washington. Morrell said he had "no indication" that such programs would be disrupted by the Kitty Hawk incident.

[Werner]

My spies tell me this incident is retaliation for the positive treatment of the Dali Lama on his recent trip to the USA.

[Dave Wooley]

My spies tell me this incident is retaliation for the positive treatment of the Dali Lama on his recent trip to the USA.

Yes it could be, a sort of chinese snub. Although I'm surprised it was Hong Kong , but having said that they tow the political line .Think of what the situation would be if the US denied a port visit to a Chinese warship.
Dave Wooley

[Guest]

Werner runs his own spy agency? He is more dangerous than I thought.



For whatever reason it was done, the way that it was agreed to, rescinded, then had the denial reversed, suggests a clumsy, dysfunctional leadership without clear centers of responsibility in which different fractions overrules each other.

[Guest]

Inscrutable Chinese and stupid too. If they want to get even with the USA, they only need to stop loaning money to the American government. Now that would get their attention.

[Yamato1701]

This is pretty typical behavior of the Mainland Chinese Government ove rthe last several years. They cause and incident and then claim they are the victim and say that everyone else are racist towards them.

[Guest]

Inscrutable Chinese and stupid too. If they want to get even with the USA, they only need to stop loaning money to the American government. Now that would get their attention.

If they stop loaning money to the Americans, their own population would be out of jobs. They are effectively using loans to America as their employment policy.

[Guest]

Speaking of which, I think they realize that by subsidizing American government spending, they ensure that American people could continue to afford to help create jobs for the Chinese. I have to say this is a better employment policy than is usually seen in other parts of the world.

The Chinese government can't afford to stop subsidizing our war in Iraq because if they stop providing financing to our war, a large block of their own populations would loose their jobs, become dissatisfied, and rob the "communist" government of its only remaining pillar of legitimacy, which is the ability to continuously provide rapid increases in standard of living.

[Guest]

Inscrutable Chinese and stupid too. If they want to get even with the USA, they only need to stop loaning money to the American government. Now that would get their attention.

If they stop loaning money to the Americans, their own population would be out of jobs. They are effectively using loans to America as their employment policy.

Latest issue of the Economist states that recent figures show %24 of China's export trade goes to the United States. The other %76 goes to other nations in the world. If the USA has China over the barrel by their using the USA to dump 1/4 of their exports, hold 1 1/2 trillion in dollar reserves, loan the US a substantial portion of the 2+ billion a day they need to make up for the difference between income and spending. Well, that's what I call really having them where it hurts!

[Gone Asiatic]

If they stop loaning money to the Americans, their own population would be out of jobs. They are effectively using loans to America as their employment policy.

Latest issue of the Economist states that recent figures show %24 of China's export trade goes to the United States. The other %76 goes to other nations in the world. If the USA has China over the barrel by their using the USA to dump 1/4 of their exports, hold 1 1/2 trillion in dollar reserves, loan the US a substantial portion of the 2+ billion a day they need to make up for the difference between income and spending. Well, that's what I call really having them where it hurts!

Would the totalitarian society or liberal democratic fair better in such an economic hostile situation?

[Guest]

I didn't say we are getting the better of them. I said they can't afford to voluntarily stop getting the better of us economically just to score a few far less significant political points.