Tag Archives: China

While the US Fights Terror, China Snaps Up Resources

Donate Now
Secure Freedom Radio is made possible by listeners like you.

With Tom Marino, Roger Noriega, George O’Conor, Bill Gertz

Congressman TOM MARINO (PA-10) examines the Obama Administration’s decision to weaken restrictions on immigrants who have given support to terrorism as an example of executive overreach.

ROGER NORIEGA, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, weighs in on the heavy influence narco-trafficking has in Latin America, and reports that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is helping support the Maduro government in Venezuela.

GEORGE O’CONOR, founder of Chime Media, describes China’s grabbing up of water resources across the globe, and its tightening control over worldwide shipping routes.

BILL GERTZ, Senior Editor at the Washington Free Beacon, provides in-depth analysis regarding the intensified status of politically shaken Ukraine and the recent Russian military exercise near Ukraine’s eastern border.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

General: Strategic Military Satellites Vulnerable to Attack in Future Space War

U.S. strategic military satellites are vulnerable to attack in a future space war and the Pentagon is considering a major shift to smaller satellites in response, the commander of the Air Force Space Command said Tuesday.

Gen. William Shelton said in a speech that China currently has a missile that can destroy U.S. satellites and warned that the threat of both space weapons and high-speed orbiting debris is growing.

The threat of attack to large communications and intelligence satellites is prompting a major study on whether to diversify the current satellite arsenal of scores of orbiters.

The four-star general also said he is wary of the United States joining an international code of conduct for space, an initiative promoted by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The code likely would constrain the United States’ freedom of action in the increasingly contested realm of space, he said during remarks at George Washington University.

Over the past several decades, satellites have revolutionized war fighting and caused a shift in the character of military forces from large ground armies to forces that emphasize agility and speed.

Shelton said the United States’ highest priority military satellites are those that provide survivable communications and missile warning. Current systems cost about $1 billion each.

If any of these critical satellites are attacked and destroyed in a conflict or crisis, the loss “would create a huge hole in our capability” to conduct modern, high-tech warfare, Shelton said.

“Space has become contested in all orbits, where we face a host of man-made threats that may deny, degrade, or disrupt our capabilities,” Shelton said, noting electronic jamming, laser attacks and “direct attack weapons,” which are all systems being developed by China’s military.

Jamming satellites is “a cheap and effective way of blocking our signals from space” and lasers “can blind our imaging systems, and in the future, they could prove destructive to our satellites,” he said.

“Direct attack weapons, like the Chinese anti-satellite system, can destroy our space systems,” Shelton said.

China’s successful landing of a robot rover on the moon last month revealed “an aggressive Chinese space program,” Shelton said.

China is also building anti-satellite weapons that range from ground-launched missiles that destroy orbiting satellites, ground-based lasers, electronic jammers, and cyber attacks, according to defense officials.

The latest annual report of the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated that China recently conducted a test of a high-earth orbit anti-satellite missile.

The test signaled “China’s intent to develop an [anti-satellite] capability to target satellites in an altitude range that includes U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) and many U.S. military and intelligence satellites,” the report said. The Free Beacon first reported the test.

Defense officials also disclosed in January 2013 that China launched three small maneuvering satellites as part of its ASAT program, including one with a robotic arm that can be used to capture or destroy orbiting satellites.

Shelton said he favors better communication with the Chinese military on its space warfare efforts and that recent exchanges are encouraging and could avert a future military “miscalculation” in space.

“Miscalculation is one of the biggest threats we face,” he said.

China has repeatedly rebuffed U.S. government efforts to engage in discussions on space weapons and warfare, among the Chinese military’s most secret programs.

“Like the old Billy Joel song says, we didn’t start the fire, but we’re certainly in it, and it would be irresponsible for us, irresponsible at a minimum, not to protect ourselves,” he said.

To better protect satellites in a future conflict, the military is currently studying new ways of replacing or restructuring satellite systems, along with better methods to dissuade and deter enemies from attacking them.

The policy of loading large satellites with numerous types of sensors and missions worked well in the past. But in the new contested space environment, a new strategy and architecture are needed, Shelton said.

One new strategy advocated by the general calls for “architectural alternatives” that are currently being studied by both military and industry.

The new focus calls for shifting away from large, multiple-payload satellites in favor of a larger number of smaller and simpler systems, which would be less expensive and conform to the currently tight defense budgets.

“By distributing our space payloads across multiple satellite platforms, we increase our resiliency to the cheap shot or premature failure,” Shelton said. “At a minimum, it complicates our adversaries’ targeting calculus.”

A new system of “disaggregation” also calls for new satellite operating methods. In one recent experiment, the military equipped commercial communications satellites with a missile-warning sensor. Shelton said the test was “very successful.”

Bureaucratic opposition in government and industry to a smaller, diversified satellite structure can be expected.

But Shelton warned: “Now, I’m not a fan of waiting for a catastrophe to propel change. The signs of a radically different space environment are all there. We just have to pay attention to them.”

America’s enemies have been studying U.S. war fighting efforts in the past several decades and are “going to school on us,” Shelton said, specifically the revolutionary way the U.S. military uses satellites to integrate information assets in combat.

He compared the current threat of space warfare to the beginning of the space flight age in the 1960s.

“Just as the start of space flight signaled a fundamental shift in military operations, in my mind, so does this new era of challenging another nation’s space assets,” he said. “Sad, but true, in every medium, mankind has found a way to make it a medium of conflict. Land, sea, undersea, air and now space and cyber.”

The growing threats to space, now crowded with around 1,000 active satellites and 23,000 pieces of space debris, has increased the need for closer space intelligence and surveillance, currently based on radar and optical sensors at ground stations around the world and a dedicated satellites orbiting 23,000 miles in space to track things in high-earth orbit.

“Keeping a constant eye on space and the activity that’s going on there is vital to our national security,” Shelton said, noting over 60 nations have a financial stake in at least one satellite and 11 countries have space launch capabilities.

Shelton said all nations have a right to access space but U.S. policy calls for opposition to “aggressive behavior and debris creation.”

“We believe in freedom of navigation and freedom of maneuver and we will constantly work to maintain both,” he said.

On the space code of conduct, Shelton said he favors the concept but is concerned that an international accord would “unnecessarily constrain us.”

“We believe in freedom of action and freedom of maneuver in space,” he said. “If we have gotten to the place with a code of conduct that it ties our hands in some way with what we need to do to accomplish national security objectives, I think that’s problematic.”

Also, verifying a space agreement would require honest participants, he said.

The Obama administration announced in 2012 that it was considering joining the European Union in formal talks on the code, which has been promoted by Russia and China.

The Pentagon’s Joint Staff in an assessment of the code of conduct warned at that time it would constrain U.S. military operations in space.

“Just simple calculation: My search volume, if you will, of what I’m responsible for protecting is 73 trillion cubic miles, geosynchronous orbit to the surface of the earth. Think about trying to monitor the activity in that vast space and making sure nobody’s doing anything to violate either that code of conduct or the treaty or whatever it is you’ve come up with in terms of an international agreement,” Shelton said.

“We have to think this through, and I guess I put myself in the realist class instead of the idealist class,” he said. “And if it doesn’t have reality to it, I’m not sure it’s got a whole lot of value.”

On deterring space warfare and dissuading states from waging it, Shelton said both subjects are a concern.

“How does the United States deter activity against its space capability? How does it dissuade nefarious actions in space? How does it dissuade people even building systems that provide that capability to potential adversaries?”

“To me that is a tremendous challenge because if you look at traditional deterrence theory and try to apply that to space, part of it works, but a big part of it doesn’t work at all.”

Developing the most powerful U.S. space weapons to deter adversaries may not be useful for deterrence and dissuasion, he said.

Nuclear war deterrence theory during the Cold War would be very different when applied to both the space and cyber domains, Shelton said.

China military affairs expert Richard Fisher said Shelton’s emphasis on “disaggregation” of strategic satellites relies on passive defenses. China, on the other hand, is building active, offensive space warfare capabilities.

“The United States also needs to develop its own active military space systems to deter China,” Fisher said. “The U.S.needs multiple anti-satellite systems, that can be launched from ground, naval, and air platforms.”

To counter any U.S. attempts to make strategic satellites more resilient, China is investing in micro and ultra-small satellites, Fisher said, noting that China’s entire space program is run by the People’s Liberation Army.

A new doctrine of disengagement

Most Americans did not comprehend in 2008 what President-to-be Obama meant when he declared that he was going to “fundamentally” transform America. The first clear indication should have come with his June 2009 Cairo “outreach” speech to the Muslim world. With the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood leadership prominently seated in the front row (and his host, Egypt’s then-president, Hosni Mubarak, not in attendance), his speech, in effect, gave the green light to the Arab Spring movement. Secular dictatorships that were cooperating with the United States and keeping Islamic jihadists under control were clearly the first targets.

This should have raised the question: Is this the new Obama doctrine? If so, it has left our friends and allies not only confused, but at times feeling betrayed. Certainly, that is the case for our longtime and closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. With the Obama administration’s ill-conceived agreement with Iran, Israel, for all practical purposes, has been cast adrift and must now make plans to ensure its own survivability.

The sense that America is disengaging, coupled with our unilateral disarmament, is contributing to instability throughout the world. With Iran on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power, the net result will be to foster the spread of nuclear-weapon states. Clearly, this initial agreement with Iran has implications far beyond the Middle East. It has brought into question the reliability of our security guarantees that our allies and friends have counted on as part of the key underpinning for their own national security. Aside from Israel, this is of particular concern to our allies in the Western Pacific with China’s bullying tactics in trying to enforce their illegal claims in both the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Beijing’s massive military buildup over the past two decades is clearly targeting the United States, particularly the U.S. Navy. Its anti-ship ballistic missile is designed to attack our aircraft carriers and other major surface combatants as part of their anti-denial, anti-access strategy. China’s strategic force modernization program, which includes more than 3,000 miles of underground reinforced tunnels for its fixed and mobile nuclear forces, also includes its strategic nuclear ballistic-missile and conventional submarine forces operating from underground submarine pens off Hainan Island. With typical arrogance, some Chinese have boasted that their submarines are on alert and prepared to kill between 5 million and 12 million Americans in Western U.S. cities.

Not surprising, with the perception that the United States is disengaging with its ill-advised one-war strategy, our pivot to Asia has not impressed the Chinese. Beijing senses the opportunity is near to achieve its core objectives of hegemony in the Western Pacific. As part of what some analyst have termed the “Finlandization” of the Western Pacific, China’s latest move was to declare an air-defense identification zone in the East China Sea requiring all military and civilian aircraft to report flight information before entering. Japan has ordered its domestic and military aircraft to ignore the requirement.

Regretfully, Japan was undercut by the Obama administration, which has told U.S. commercial carriers to comply, even though we have flown military aircraft through the zone without notifying China. The identification zone just happens to cover the disputed Senkaku Islands, which Japan has administered since 1951 as part of our World War II peace treaty and China is now claiming. Our response should be to demand that China withdraw the zone. Further, equivocation on our part will only lead to additional Chinese air-defense identification zones.

Likewise, Russia’s announced $750 billion modernization military program cannot be ignored. It will include new strategic ballistic- and cruise-missile submarines, and new fifth-generation stealth fighters as well as modernization of its strategic and theater nuclear forces. Vladimir Putin’s attempt to re-establish part of the old Soviet empire, primarily through economic blackmail, should be of serious concern. Ukraine is the key prize that Mr. Putin has forced into joining Russia’s Customs Union instead of the European Union. Even with massive street protests in Kiev, the Obama administration ignores what clearly would be a victory for the West, just as he did in ignoring the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran.

The actions the Obama administration are now pursuing are clearly jeopardizing our national security. The continued pursuit of the “zero option” along with the failure to modernize our strategic nuclear infrastructure is but one example. The crushing debt now at more than $17.2 trillion and growing at the rate of more than $1 trillion per year will fundamentally change America. It certainly will call into question our creditworthiness.

The unilateral disarmament brought about by forcing our military forces to absorb 50 percent of the sequestration cuts made no sense. Our open-border policy is another serious national-security issue. Al Qaeda jihadists are free to infiltrate our borders at will. It should be remembered that, ideologically, there is no difference between al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian theocracy. They all have the same objective; namely, to destroy America and Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood creed is instructive as it clearly states the objective is to destroy America from within. The question is, with his left-wing background, has Mr. Obama and his administration embraced the Muslim brand of fundamental change for America? If so, then this represents the greatest threat to our nation’s security.

China’s High Frontier

A leading indicator of national prestige and power is the ability to access and use outer space.

China has just made what Chairman Mao would call a “great leap forward” with its successful soft-landing of an unmanned rover on the lunar surface. The Communist Chinese reportedly intend ultimately to militarize earth’s moon, complete with a manned presence and missile deployments.

Meanwhile, the U.S. space program has been reduced to hopping rides – at exorbitant expense – on Russian rockets to visit an international space station. President Obama actually told the NASA director that his “foremost” mission is to make Muslim nations “feel good about their historic contribution to science.”

The Chinese intend to control space.  If we continue to accede to that ambition, it’s just a matter of time ’til we’re toast.

Joe Biden to Visit Asia As Air Zone Dispute Grows

With Gordon Chang

GORDON CHANG, expert contributor to Fox News and World Affairs Journal, joins Frank Gaffney for a full show to discuss the recent rise of tensions in East Asia.

Gordon begins by giving a backgrounder on China’s ambitions towards the Senkaku Islands and the resulting dispute it has caused with Japan.

Turning to the top headlines, Gordon examines the strategic importance of the U.S.’s Pacific Fleet and what the significance is of the U.S. flying B-52 bombers through China’s newly declared air defense zone.

With the rise of tension in Asia, Gordon stresses the importance of the U.S. looking to its friends, i.e. the democratic countries in Asia, and not hard line states like China to secure its interests.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Obama’s One-War Posture Invites Two

The latest manifestation of Barack Obama’s serial national security fraud is on display at the moment in East Asia.  For much of his presidency, Mr. Obama has contended that the defense budget could be dramatically reduced because, henceforth, the United States would only need sufficient military capability to fight one war at a time.

Predictably, the sorts of geostrategic realities that have argued historically for a two-war capability are intruding on the President’s dangerously false representations.  The concept is simple:  By having the ability to fight and decisively win two nearly simultaneous conflicts in different parts of the world, you discourage any potential adversaries from thinking they can act with impunity once the United States has become engaged in one distant war.

Ronald Reagan called this sort of posture “peace through strength.”

Now, however, we confront a Middle East that is becoming more explosive by the day.  That is due, in part, to Mr. Obama’s earlier acts of malfeasance and fraud, including his woefully deficient nuclear deal with Iran – which is only beginning to reverberate throughout the region – and the destabilizing dynamics engendered by the ongoing Islamist uprising he has supported from Tunisia to Bahrain.

Meanwhile, China is acting increasingly aggressively towards its neighbors in the Western Pacific, most of whom have relied for decades on the sort of American protection that – thanks to the Obama military-wrecking operation – is no longer assured.  Beijing has obviously concluded that the United States has neither the muscle nor the will to interfere with Chinese bullying of our allies.  It may, by design or by miscalculation, precipitate actual hostilities with Japan over the contested Senkaku Islands controlled by the latter.

China’s latest lurch in that direction occurred last week when it declared an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) covering those islands.  The Obama administration has sent mixed signals in response, defiantly flying without the required advance notice unarmed B-52 bombers and other aircraft into the PRC’s new ADIC.  Yet, its FAA has directed U.S. commercial carriers to conform to Chinese requirements for filing flight plans. The latter guidance has, understandably, infuriated the Japanese who asserted their sovereignty by telling Japan’s airlines not to file such plans with Beijing, and who see in the American move yet another indication of our unreliability.

Those concerns are likely to be heightened, not allayed, by Mr. Obama’s dispatch of Vice President Joe Biden for consultations in Tokyo and Seoul and meetings with China’s president, Xi Jinping.  For one thing, Mr. Biden’s interlocutors are sure to have noticed that he is regarded with derision by his own countrymen.  It seems unlikely that reflexively xenophobic Chinese will respect him more.  For another, the message he seems likely to convey to China’s new leader – with whom the Vice President has spent considerable time in previous home-and-home visits – is one of accommodation, not resolve.

Even if Joe Biden could find it in himself to demand that China rescind its ADIZ declaration and, while he’s at it, insist that his Communist hosts renounce their outrageous claims to sovereignty over most of the South and East China Seas, the message would be as incredible as the messenger.  In the absence of the actual capacity to project American power in East Asia, China will seek to fill the vacuum created by Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States from the dominant force in that region to a middling, unreliable and wasting one.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has long warned that, “Weakness is provocative.”  Consequently, we are sure to confront not just further encroachment by China on the territory and natural resources of its neighbors.  We will also witness Chinese bullying that may well translate into shooting wars.

China is going to great lengths to ensure that, if it comes to that, a United States that is still militarily superior by most measures will suffer greatly at its hands – and probably thereby be deterred.  For example, Beijing is introducing precision-guided, conventionally armed ballistic missiles designed to destroy aircraft carriers at sea, together with anti-satellite weapons intended to give the PRC space control.

In addition, high-speed torpedoes with the capability to circumvent our countermeasures and advanced stealth fighters will pose a formidable threat to whatever forces we may still be able to muster.  And, as Chinese media recently boasted, nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles are now poised to kill between 5-12 million Americans through attacks on Western U.S. cities and radioactive fallout downwind stretching as far as Chicago.

As in the Middle East, the perception among friends and foes alike of American disengagement and unilateral disarmament will probably translate into the proliferation of nuclear weapons in nations from Saudi Arabia to Japan.  Such a development would, of course, complicate the plans of aggressors, like Iran and China.  But it will also contribute to the growing volatility of some of the world’s most explosive tinderboxes and, in the case of the Saudis, result in the migration of nuclear arms to jihadists.

President Obama has contributed materially to the heightened danger the Free World now faces with his abandoning of the Reagan philosophy of peace through strength.  His underfunded one-war capability leaves us exceedingly vulnerable to the ambitions of our enemies.  And, tragically, the next war – or two – may, like so many in the past, have been preventable, if only we had not relied on hope rather than strength to keep the peace.

Biden’s Misbegotten Mission to Beijing

Joe Biden is off to China. Team Obama hopes his personal relationship with Chinese president Xi Jinping will improve relations strained by Beijing’s aggressiveness, including a new air defense identification zone over several Japanese-controlled islands.

What’s wrong with this picture?  First, the Chinese know our vice president is the object of ridicule from the White House on down.  He’s unlikely to get respect from folks who don’t think much of Americans on a good day.

Second, Biden’s conciliatory message is as bad as the messenger. A visit to China for any purpose other than to tell its leadership to rescind the air defense zone announcement will be seen for what it is: accommodation to a new, Chinese-dictated order.

Joe Biden’s trip will increase the dangers of Chinese miscalculation, not erase them.

Can a crippled HHS react in time to a killer virus?

While Congress is preoccupied with the shortcomings of Obamacare and the mangled launch of Healthcare.gov, another disaster is brewing that deserves the immediate attention of Congress, especially those members who supported reauthorization of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act earlier this year.

A new and deadly avian influenza virus named H7N9 emerged in China early this year and demonstrated an alarming ability to jump the species barrier and infect humans. When it does, the infected person typically comes down with a severe form of pneumonia that leads, to multiple organ failure. So far, H7N9 has killed one out of three victims.

By October 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 137 laboratory-confirmed cases of H7N9 flu, including 45 deaths. Although incidence of new cases declined during the warmer months mid-year, ominously, four new cases were reported in recent weeks as cooler weather returned.

The H7N9 virus, like similar influenza viruses, is a disease whose natural hosts are birds, including ducks and chickens. But in conditions of close contact, like those in much of China’s rural countryside its live bird markets, it can and does spread to humans.

Scientists are watching closely to determine if this rapidly-mutating virus will develop an ability to pass directly from human-to-human in a sustained manner. This has not happened yet with H7N9, nor has it been detected in the United States, but the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) already has cited the “pandemic potential” of the virus to spread rapidly across the globe should human-to-human transmission develop.

The good news is that China has developed a vaccine. Chinese scientists reportedly used reverse genetics and genetic reassortment to achieve their success. Concern remains, however, about whether China will be able to produce vaccine quickly enough to meet a likely massive demand as cold weather ushers in the 2013-2014 flu season. In late October 2013, a spokesman for the vaccine team said manufacturers would need at least another six months to conduct pilot tests, human trials, and obtain drug approvals.

Meanwhile, even though H7N9 has not appeared in the U.S. as of mid-September 2013, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases launched clinical trials at nine sites of a U.S. candidate vaccine, called an investigational vaccine. Despite the pandemic threat posed by the H7N9 virus, these studies are not expected to conclude until December 2014.

In light of the deadly threat from this new and not fully understood virus, it might be expected that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be moving aggressively to fund vaccine production as expeditiously as possible. But, according to a report issued by Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the HHS approach is laid-back one. That is, even though vaccine clinical trials are underway, the decision to conduct a “large-scale vaccine manufacturing campaign” depends on HHS’s assessment of the “risk of emergence of sustained human-to-human transmission.” In other words, once HHS decides an H7N9 pandemic is imminent, only then it will decide about ramping up vaccine production.

With HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius otherwise occupied trying to explain the HealthCare.gov disaster to Congress, it may be understandable that a mere flu pandemic, with the potential to sicken and kill millions around the world, has slipped a place or two on her priorities list.

Flu season is just around the corner, and an H7N9 pandemic may be as well. For Americans to be protected, HHS must stop dithering and, at a minimum, use the previously allocated $110 million to place initial vaccine production orders. While that may afford only a fraction of what is ultimately needed to protect all of America, having a stockpile for select groups, such as our troops and first responders, is a critical first step that should not be ignored or further delayed.

On at least one count, though, the American public can be somewhat reassured. For various reasons, including its rapidly mutating genome, the H7N9 virus is probably not a good candidate for a biological warfare agent. That doesn’t mean that countries like China, North Korea, and Russia, with their advanced biological warfare programs, aren’t conducting offensive weapon research on H7N9 — they probably are.

The H7N9 threat is very real, and the CDC did not mince words in its assessment of the danger. Congress must ensure BARDA gets that message before it is too late.

China’s Pivot to Latin America

The quest for global naval power runs parallel to competition for control of markets in Latin America.. The two largest world economies, the United States, and China are vying for control of these markets.

China has an enormous population of approximately 1.3 billion people but is only able to use a very small percentage of its land mass. Its’ consumer market is the wealthiest it has been in modern times. China desires access to key resources such as petroleum, coal, iron, uranium, as well as agricultural products. Latin America is in high global demand, with 500 million people, and a $3trillion market. In its quest to be Latin America’s foremost business partner, China has risen out of ambiguity to become one of the top three exporters, sometimes surpassing the United States in countries like Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, and Brazil.

China has sought to be the prime lender in Latin America, loaning $110 billion dollars thus exceeding the World Bank’s contribution for the past two years. Some of China’s other most noteworthy loans include $28 billion to Venezuela, $10.2 billion to the Argentine debt swap, and 10 billion to Brazilian oil company, Petrobras. China wishes to benefit from developing infrastructure, ports, roads and rail systems in Latin America. In Nicaragua,  China is planning the start of a canal bigger than the Panama Canal, facilitating passage to larger container ships than the Panama Canal is now able to handle. In Panama,  China controls the leases at both ends of the Panama Canal and is in the process of widening the Canal in order to accommodate larger vessels. This constitutes excellent strategic positioning for China, giving them virtual control over two major passageways. Though a huge amount of the world’s trade transits the Panama Canal, the United States remains its biggest user.

China’s economic relations in the Caribbean are also growing by leaps and bounds. Consider a $2.6 billion resort, among a gaggle of Chinese owned hotels and casinos being built by the Chinese in the Bahamas, 80 miles off the U.S. coast. Or Complant, a Chinese company, investing millions of dollars in Jamaica’s sugar industry. The Bahamas and Jamaica are great strategic places for the Chinese to invest due to their close proximity to the U.S., as well as in Cuba, with whom they already have solid military, diplomatic and commercial relations.

In recent years, China has embarked on a well-planned pivot to Latin America, focusing on a multifaceted military approach. In terms of soft military power, the Chinese naval hospital, Peace Ark has sailed the Caribbean offering medical and military services, similar to America’s USNS Comfort, but, with the addition of military council. China conducts military exchange and arm sales with Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay.  In Argentina, the Chinese are providing  technological assistance  with aircraft and helicopters and in Brazil with civilian and military operations. In addition, specific attention is being paid to Venezuela as a launching pad for military and diplomatic influence in South America.

One cannot completely blame the Chinese for wanting to establish trade relations with countries in close proximity to the United States. As a result of the magnitude of American influence in China’s neighborhood,  China has globally voiced its disapproval of the U.S. Military. In its pivot to Asia, the U.S. has enhanced its military relationships with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. China believes that the U.S. is practicing containment of Chinese diplomatic, military, and economic relations. Recently, the U.S.  made a deal with Australia for the installation of new military hardware in existing military bases in Darwin. Interestingly, China is Australia’s largest trading partner. It can be deduced that the military climate in Asia is escalating to Cold War proportions as China has recently launched its first aircraft carrier, and has been having territorial disputes in the South China Sea with its neighbors; Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines.

Both China and the U.S. are focused on South America for trade, financial and military investment due to its wealth in commodities and fuels. Washington has signed annual exchanges of $800 billion dollars with Latin America for the development of trade pertaining to various goods and services. Ideally, however, this should have happened sooner as the U.S. has reacted to China’s push toward Latin America with delay.  For example, China has become the largest trading partner of South America’s most pivotal economy, Brazil, in pursuit of iron and soy. As stated by Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon in 2013, “China has been quietly taking steps to encircle the United States by arming western hemisphere states, seeking closer military, economic, and diplomatic ties to U.S. neighbors, and sailing warships into U.S. maritime zones.”

In response to the U.S. pivot to Asia, China wishes to rival the U.S. in Latin America. China is aggressively seeking commercial, diplomatic, and military ties with countries in the Americas. Recently, the Chinese president Xi Jin Ping visited Trinidad, Costa Rica, and Mexico offering loans in the hundreds of millions of dollars, including $4 billion to Venezuela for oil development. China may float money easily to Latin American regimes, but these loans usually come with pre-conditions. For instance, it is highly possible that countries receiving money from China will have to support their claim to the Senkaku islands, or perhaps their sovereignty over Taiwan. Such indirect coercion ought to indicate to these countries the true nature of the Chinese government, and should make them think twice about wanting to take easy money from China.

As the Chinese increase the size of their navy, they are also drastically growing the size and significance of their influence in the Americas, not just in South America, but in Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico and even Canada. As the emerging world super power, China has been steadily gaining the reputation of being a country that is coercive with regard to the current treatment of its neighbors, as well as being politically manipulative in the way it drafts treaties with new trading partners, especially those in Latin America. The U.S. and the rest of the free world should take notice of this as an indication of what will happen if the Chinese surpass the U.S. as the world’s most dominant economic and naval power.

The Test of Summit Success

Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart will spend “quality time” together over the next two days.  The U.S. president’s handlers are calling the event the “shirtsleeve summit” to underscore the informal and unstructured nature of the two-day meeting.

Team Obama clearly hopes that by focusing on such atmospherics, the two men will be seen as getting along and succeeding at summitry.  So, while the U.S. president is supposed to talk about unpleasant subjects – like China’s comprehensive and ongoing cyberwarfare against this country – it seems unlikely he will risk offending his guest by demanding an end to it.

Whether Mr. Obama does so, and expressly repudiates other Chinese belligerence – including its declared ownership of most of the South China Sea – will be the real measure of the shirtsleeve summit, not the smiling photo-ops.