After a brief delay, China has launched its first aircraft carrier, a refitted version of the Soviet carrier the Varyag.
The carrier, widely expected to be renamed the Shi Lang, reportedly left its shipyard at Dalian Port on Wednesday morning for its first sea trial. According to the official Xinhua News Agency, military sources have said that ‘the trial is in line with the carrier's refitting schedule and will not take a long time. Refitting work will continue after the vessel has returned to the port.’
‘The Liaoning Provincial Maritime Safety Administration publicized a notice restricting navigation in waters off the Dalian coast, saying that vessels are forbidden from traveling through an area of sea 13.25 nautical miles wide and 22 nautical miles long in the northern Yellow Sea and Liaodong Bay from Aug. 10 to 14,’ Xinhua reported.
The launch comes at a sensitive time, with China’s neighbours growing increasingly concerned both over the pace of the country’s military build-up, and also the way Beijing has been increasingly muscular in pushing its territorial claims, particularly in the South China Sea. China has made expansive claims to the waters, claims that neighbours including Vietnam and the Philippines strongly dispute.
According to a commentary posted today by Xinhua, the aircraft carrier is aimed simply at defending China’s extensive coastline, and doesn’t mark a shift in China’s military posture.
‘(B)uilding a strong navy that is commensurate with China's rising status is a necessary step and an inevitable choice for the country to safeguard its increasingly globalized national interests. China has told the world repeatedly that it will never seek hegemony, no matter how developed it is,’ the commentary said. ‘China has been devoted to world peace and will remain a force for peace. Chinese navy fleets had by June escorted 3,953 ships from countries all over the world through the Gulf of Aden and waters off Somalia, among which 47 percent were foreign commercial ships.’
Still, concerns linger over the lack of clarity over China’s military spending, which is believed to be significantly higher than the official figure of 601.1 billion yuan($93.7 billion) for this year (which itself marks a jump of 12.7 percent on a year earlier). Such concerns have been stoked by a number of defence surprises over the past year, including a test flight by China’s first stealth fighter, the J-20, during a visit to Beijing by then US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and revelations over the progress in China’s anti-ship missile capabilities.
Meanwhile, senior Chinese military officers have indicated that they intend to develop their own aircraft carrier, development that is expected to draw on some lessons learned through the purchase of the Varyag, and potentially also Britain’s Ark Royal.
But such developments face significant technical challenges.
‘A seaworthy vessel and operational naval fighters will provide the backbone of the Chinese navy's evolving carrier force. But they are not, in themselves, adequate for a useful carrier force. Leaving aside the huge manpower, planning and logistical demands of a modern aircraft carrier, there are additional hardware needs that China hasn’t yet met,’ notes Diplomat analyst David Axe.
‘To enable true, long-range carrier operations, the People's Liberation Army Navy still needs to develop, build and field carrier-capable airborne command-and-control aircraft plus aerial tankers and electronic-warfare planes. Without these so-called “enablers,” Shi Lang and her J-15s represent little more than training assets, with few real-world applications.’
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
silencetigger
“China has made expansive claims to the waters, claims that neighbours including Vietnam and the Philippines strongly dispute.”
I doubt if the Chinese government has made any new territorial claim that is not Inherited from the previous ROC government, which is currently administrating Taiwan. If so, where does the word “expansive” came from?
Huy Duong
Although the U shaped line was first drawn in 1947, for nearly 50 years neither the ROC or PRC tried to claim the maritime space inside it.
It was only in the 90s that the PRC started to act as if it is claiming the maritime space within that line.
It was only in 2007 that the PRC required maps published in that country to draw that line.
It was only in 2009 that the PRC used the U shaped line map for the first time in the context of maritime claims.
So although the PRC inherit the U shaped line map from the ROC, it is the PRC, thanks to its growing strength and to the weakness of ASEAN, that has turned an obscure map into a maritime ambition.
silencetigger
To me, what Huy Duong said with regarding to the “9-dot-line” are either making no sense or simply untrue.
“…It was only in the 90s that the PRC started to act as if it is claiming the maritime space within that line.” — Non sense! If you drew the line as your nation’s border, you made the claim.
“…It was only in 2007 that the PRC required maps published in that country to draw that line.” — Not true. go get ANY PRC map printed prior to 2007 and you will see.
“…It was only in 2009 that the PRC used the U shaped line map for the first time in the context of maritime claims.” — Again, as soon as you drew the border line, the territorial claim has been made. There is no such thing as drawing a border without claiming the area within.
I’d agree the last sentence you said, though I wouldn’t call the PRC’s current behavior in South China Sea “ambitious”, it is just trying to do what we call “say what you mean and mean what say”.
The ROC government was too weak to mean what it said. The PRC is not.
ozivan
The first aircraft carrier by China shows only the coming of age of a military power ; just like for many countries, the holding of the Olympic games is the coming of age of an economic power.
See the benefits of having an aircraft carrier..!!??
The ” Varyag ” is only a training vessel for the moment, and it is already reaping so much publicity and psychological wins even before China can prove that it is an effective fighting platform.
Meanwhile, for better or worse, Jason Miks & David Axe will make it look bigger and more lethal than China’s carriers are capable of , in order to put fear in China’s neighbours minds , but those who have their heads fixed on their shoulders know that, so far , it is more symbolic than real naval power.
Frank
win before a fight.
Huy Duong
Not every line drawn over the sea on a map is claim over maritime space. In fact, many such lines are claims over the islands within those lines.
In 1947, when the Chinese map maker first drew the U shaped line, international law only allowed a 3-nautical mile territorial sea. So that line could never have been a legal claim over maritime space. And the ROC only ever claimed the islands inside that line, not the maritime space.
In 1958, the PRC claimed a maritime space of 12 nautical miles from coasts and islands, and acknowledged that beyond that was international water. This means that in 1958 the PRC did not see the U shaped line as a claim to maritime space, otherwise the area beyond 12 nautical miles wouldn’t be international waters.
Things stated to change in the 90s. When China started to grow stronger, so did its territorial ambition.
Seeing that ASEAN is weak, China is trying to turn the 1947 U shaped line, which would have been illegal had it been a maritime claim, into a maritime claim.
Fortunately, since China started to use the U shaped line as a maritime claim, the ASEAN countries are fighting back. Indonesia has written a note verbale to the commission on the continental shelf to say that the U shaped line has no basis in international law. Singapore said that China’s claims are causing concerned and should be clarified. Of course Vietnam rejects the U shaped line.
Best of all, the Philippines has challenged China to go to court over maritime claims. Of course China refused. That was not surprising as most international scholars think that the U shaped line has no basis in international law.
ozivan
@Huy Duong. You wrote : In 1947, when the Chinese map maker first drew the U shaped line, international law only allowed a 3-nautical mile territorial sea.
The 3 nautical mile territorial sea or ” gunshot ” sea territory was not international law, but a rule imposed singly by the British Empire. The first laws of the sea that was internationally accepted came about in 1956 UNCLOS , followed by UNCLOS 1960 & 1982. So, if you say that in 1947 , the Chinese first drew the U-shaped line, then you’re inferring that the Chinese has long had a claim based on history even before UNCLOS came into being.
Anyway, if you’re Vietnamese judging from your name , I am of the view that China & Vietnam both have historic and UNCLOS basis of claims to the Paracel & Spratlys. The rest of the claimants just rode on the 1960 & 1982 UNCLOS, when oil & gas deposits were reported to exist in the SCS in the 1960s.
Instead of griping on the internet , who has the better right , we might as well accept the reality that China is not going to let Vietnam or any claimants explore the SCS on their own with an outside party , without China’s consent or participation. China has already cut the survey cable of a Vietnamese survey ship , and will do so again if Vietnam makes another attempt. Vietnam & Philippines can shout and scream threatening to call in the US , China is not going to budge. Deal with it.
Meanwhile, be mindful that China & US might do a deal over your heads , just like Russia & China looked the other way , when US & NATO attacked Iraq & Libya.
Besides , this is already a moot point , since the cool headed diplomats in the Chinese & Vietnamese Foreign Office have agreed to resolve the disputes amicably under the joint exploration agreement signed between China & Vietnam on March 14, 2005.
I note that there are numerous arguments and insults traded among bloggers going back centuries to histories of China & Vietnam over the SCS , which are pointless. We might as well research into what is going now on the stance and negotiation tactics employed by the various claimants.
A solution would be that the claimants jointly develop the SCS resources with China, because then the difficult issue of sovereignty can be easily factored into the joint ventures.
ozivan
@Huy Duong. I recommend that you and those bloggers , who thinks the US would run to your rescue at your beg and call , to read archives of the South Ossetian & Abkhazia wars in August 2008 (aka Georgian-Russo war) between Russia and Georgia.
Prior to the war, the Bush administration armed and trained the Georgian army , conduct military exercises with the Georgians , while the Russians waited to set up the Georgians. The Russians just waited for the Georgians to embolden themselves by President Bush and US State Secretary Condoleeza Rice , to the extent that they started the invasion of South Ossetia first. The Russians gave Georgia a bloody nose and lost their lands, while Bush looked on helplessly.
This goes with Vietnam & especially Philippines who trumpeted the 1951 Mutual Assistance Agreement with the US , and boasted about joint military exercises , or talked of Subic Bay or Cam Ranh Bay. China need only to send a small maritime vessel or two to attrite Vietnam or Philippines , and wait for some hotheaded Vietnamese or Filipinos navymen to start sinking a Chinese vessel first , then the US would agonise on how to deal with the situation.
Don’t even think that the US are your paid security guard at your beg and call, inspite of their rhetoric. Remember Georgia again.
Observer
LOL @ Chinese bloggers trying to act tough on the internet. If your ancestors fought better, China would swallow Vietnam years ago.
Vietnam has a long proven history of defeating a much bigger China for the last few thousands years by herself and will continue to do so.
Do you Chinese ever hear “the bigger they are, the harder they fall”? Pathetic.
Observer
Did China try to teach Vietnam a lesson in 1979? Oh yes, tiny Vietnam gave big invading China a good beating and China ran back home with tails between legs, again as usual, with tens of thoussands Chinese soldiers dead. Did anyone help Vietnam? Nope.
Just like how 200 thousands Quing soldiers were defeated less than 1 week by Vietnam Emperor Quang Trung in 1788. So much Quing soldiers dead, the rivers turned red.
So keep on dreaming little Chinese bloggers. You guys better go to these articles and tell us how great China is, LOL.
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/08/11/chinas-high-speed-rail-woes/
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/08/01/chinas-troubled-railways/
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/07/25/chinas-train-crash-mystery/
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/07/19/china-and-migrant-workers/
http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/06/28/explosive-china/
What is the matter? Not too proud to be a Chinese now?
Huy Duong
@ozivan
I am against China trying to use the U shaped line to claim most of the South China Sea because it is imperialism, without basis in international law, and unjust to Vietnam and to the other countries around the South China Sea. I am not against it because I think the US is going to help.
Regardless of whether the US is going to help Vietnam and the other country in any way or not, the U shaped line is wrong as a maritime claim. Regardless of whether the US is going to help or not, Vietnam and the other countries have no choice but to resist this claim, which has no basis in international law.
When the U shaped line was drawn in 1947, China never said that it was a claim to all of the sea inside that line. Furthermore, at that time, countries only accepted claims of 3 nautical mile territorial sea, plus some special zones out to 12 nautical miles. It was not a rule imposed by Britain. And international law says that any claim that’s against international law or norm is null and void.
So the most reasonable view of the U shaped line is that it is a claim to the islands within that line, but to not the entire maritime area inside it. In fact, that was the PRC’s view in 1958. The PRC itself said in 1958 that the sea between the islands and its coast was international waters.
It was only in the 90s, when the PRC grew strong while ASEAN remained weak, that the PRC saw an opportunity to try to impose the U shaped line as a claim to maritime space.
The most reasonable claim for China to make is as follows:
1. China claims all the islands in side the U shaped line.
2. How much EEZ these islands have should be determined by international law.
The islands and their EEZ as determined in 2 would then be disputed territory. Then China and the other claimants can institute joint development in that disputed territory. Neither Vietnam or the other claimants would have any problem with that.
Instead, China is trying to claim most of the South China Sea and demanding joint development in areas right up to the coasts of other countries. That is unacceptable to Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.
ozivan
@Huy Duong. Thank you. Obviously, you’ve made a great effort and done some research in your explanation , which I do not intend to dispute, but instead will accept your views as it is.
Do you know what’s is happening now, after the Foreign Office’s guys of Vietnam & China have agreed to settle the SCS amicably ? Any progress ?
So far, I haven’t got any materials.
Best wishes
Huy Duong
@ozivan
Likewise, I would like to thank you for a reasonable discussion, regardless of whether we agree with each other or not.
It is a longstanding principle among all the claimants (and also one which the US supports – and there is nothing wrong with the US supporting that principle) that they resolve the disputes amicably. The recent joint statement between Vietnam and China is nothing new.
The question is what are the standards for “amicable”. I think at the very least they should start from the principle “Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t like to be done to yourself” rather than “The strong do what they want, the weak accept what they must”.
What seems to me to be a position that’s fair to all claimants is:
1. Accept that China (and Taiwan), the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam are all claiming at least some of the islands. The claims have not been settled, so the islands are disputed territories.
2. The above countries should get together and agree on how much of the SCS actually belongs to the disputed islands. This portion of the SCS would then be disputed territory too.
3. If they can resolve the disputes then great. If not, they should co-operate to jointly develop the disputed islands in (1) and the disputed area of the SCS in (2).
So although joint development is a good idea in principle, it doesn’t work unless there is an agreement between all the claimants on what is the disputed area, ie, what is the area to which joint development applies.