Article

2005-05-07 China-Japan-Koreas

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-07 18:06|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 China has a base in the Caribbean? Are you talking about Cuba, or is there some Chinese outpost that I'm not aware of?

Posted by Sheik Abu Bin Ali Al-Yahood 2005-05-07 18:58|| 2005-05-07 18:58|| Front Page Top

#2 I guess the ethnic chinese in Ensenada are moles? Paranoia reigns supreme for the moose

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-07 19:05|| 2005-05-07 19:05|| Front Page Top

#3 Frank G: Paranoia, hardly.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/171/print
"To complicate matters further, continued U.S. access could be at risk due to a deal struck between the Panamanian government and a Chinese-based company named Hutchinson Whampoa, Ltd. On March 19, 1997, in a $22.2 million/year deal, the government of Panama gave the Hong Kong company 50-year rights to two prime American-built port facilities flanking the canal zone at Balboa and Cristobal: both ends of the canal. Hutchinson Whampoa has worked closely in the past with the China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO) on shipping deals in Asia even before Hong Kong reverted to Beijing's control in 1997. COSCO is the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) controlled company that almost gained control of the abandoned naval station at Long Beach, California.
Hutchinson Whampoa is owned by Chinese billionaire Li Ka Shing, who has such favorable ties to the Beijing government that he was at one time offered the governorship of Hong Kong...The agreement with the Chinese was enacted by secret Panamanian legislation, passed on January 16, 1997. It provided to Hutchinson Whampoa "first option" in taking over the Rodman naval station, rights to operate piloting and tugboat services for the canal and private roads near the two ports, as well as authority to deny ships access to the ports and entrances to the canal if the ships are interfering with Hutchinson's business. This is a direct violation of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, which guarantees expeditious passage for the United States Navy. There is also another troubling report that a U.S.-based company had submitted a higher bid on the ports' lease than did the Chinese. This has lead many Americans, including U.S. Senator Trent Lott and former Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, to seek answers from the Clinton administration and the Secretary of Defense as to why a company with possible ties to the Chinese military was allowed to assume control over these former U.S. military installations..."
For further information on holdings in the Caribbean:
http://www.hutchison-whampoa.com/eng/ports/international/the_americas.htm

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-07 20:53|| 2005-05-07 20:53|| Front Page Top

#4 respectfully, your concerns are noted. When they're addressed and discarded will you accept that?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-07 20:57|| 2005-05-07 20:57|| Front Page Top

#5 Frank G: When they *are* addressed, and to my satisfaction. Otherwise, objections are less than persuasive. Having presented my thesis, I breathlessly await your antithesis, unless it only consists of objections.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-07 21:45|| 2005-05-07 21:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Chinese ownership and control is operative ONLY until severed and replaced (i.e.: easily done in time of war). When they can project power further than the west edge of Taiwan, I'll join you

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-07 22:00|| 2005-05-07 22:00|| Front Page Top

#7 The Li Ka-shing connection is true. But the significance of the deal is overrated. Can the Chinese defend it from an American demand for it to be opened to American shipping? No. Panama is 8,000 miles from China, and at most 2,000 miles from the Southern Command. No way they can defend it, even for days. Besides, why would the Panamanians allow the Chinese to dictate how the canal is used? The whole theory makes no sense. Even if the Chinese annexed Panama and put 100,000 troops in place, there is no way they could defend it. We'd annihilate them in no time. Like I said, it's too far from China. Another way of putting it is that they'd be a big fat target.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-07 22:04|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-07 22:04|| Front Page Top

#8 I 'm on board with ZF - IF China was able to take advantage of the pieces on the board, yes, moose, you'd be rightfully concerned, and we'd join you. Given PRC's limitations, that's not gonna be possible for 15-20 yrs with total inactive US moves...not likely IMNSHO.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-07 22:10|| 2005-05-07 22:10|| Front Page Top

#9 Guam also has Apra Harbor, the former NorthWest Guam AAFB, NAVCAMS and the former NAVMAG, now NAVORD [Ordnance Annex] - besides Guam, there also the former huge US WW2 air and naval bases on Tinian and Saipan islands in the CNMI. Japanese naval forces that helped attack Wake and Midway came from here, and the CNMI is believed to be where the Japanese took Amelia Earhart. Hoewever temp any "rest period" after taking Taiwan, I doubt the Chicoms will stop at only Taiwan - THE WORLD IS IN THE PROVERBIAL "FINAL STRUGGLE/CONFLICT" BETWEEN COMMUNISM-SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM. The Commies and aligned are out to destroy Democracy and Capitalism everywhere in the world, by any each and every means necessary, from within and without, legit or illegit, even iff it means working or pretending to be GOP- RIGHTIST. BILL MAHER said or inferred it again last night - there are no DEMOCRATS anymore, only Rightist "Liberals" and Republicans/Rightist Conservatives for Socialism and Communism - eerrr, Regulation and Protection of domestic,mainstream America.

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2005-05-07 22:33|| n/a]">[n/a] 2005-05-07 22:33|| Front Page Top

#10 The axiom that the Panama canal would be defended is incorrect. The H-W corporation would only need to *deny* it to the US. This would not be done with some declaration that the US couldn't use it, it would be done by either scuttling a large ship (hopefully a US warship) in the canal or some other means to make it non-navigable. As far as other Caribbean operations go, anything great or small that could inhibit the US Atlantic fleet from proceeding apace would be their intent. At worst, they would hope that the fleet would have to sail around Cape Horn, costing them a week or more travel time. The Chinese accept as doctrine that they cannot take on the US in a direct fight, so their emphasis is distraction and to delay the US's response to their actions, by unconventional means, until they have a much better strategic position. Most likely, after the conquest of Taiwan, they would immediately be prepared to set up an enormous and international scream that the US was conducting an aggressive war against "unified China", that even the US had long recognized was a single state.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-07 23:34|| 2005-05-07 23:34|| Front Page Top

#11 ...would be done by either scuttling a large ship (hopefully a US warship) in the canal or some other means to make it non-navigable.

Can't see it taking more than three days to carve up said ship and taking out the small chunks. That, and the semi-permanent deployment of two carrier groups in the Pacific, then add in the common perception ~~fact~~ that our Navy is superior to the Chinese Navy in innumerable ways, I don't see it adding up, really.

Most likely, after the conquest of Taiwan, they would immediately be prepared to set up an enormous and international scream that the US was conducting an aggressive war against "unified China", that even the US had long recognized was a single state.

What's left out of that calculus is the fact that we'd actually give a flying fuck about 'international opinion' after an obvious grab of a soverign democracy. The ChiCom's intent is fairly obvious, even to the moderately untrained eye, and I doubt we'd wait for a UNSC resolution in this case.

Posted by Raj 2005-05-07 23:58|| 2005-05-07 23:58|| Front Page Top

23:58 Chuck Simmins
23:58 Raj
23:56 Chuck Simmins
23:34 Anonymoose
23:30 trailing wife
23:23 Jackal
23:14 Jackal
23:09 RWV
22:52 Sock Puppet 0â Doom
22:51 Fred
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:30 Captain America
22:27 Captain America
22:10 Frank G
22:04 Zhang Fei
22:02 Frank G
22:00 Frank G
21:58 Frank G
21:45 Anonymoose
21:44 Cyber Sarge
21:22 Mrs. Davis
21:15 john
21:13 john
20:57 Frank G