Chinese navy drill near Japan sparks concern and protest
A Chinese naval drill near Japan has sparked concern from Tokyo, which in recent days lodged a protest with Beijing and made the rare decision to publicly disclose Chinese military movements.
In the last few weeks China's two aircraft carriers, the Shandong and the Liaoning, have been conducting simultaneous drills in the Pacific, in an unprecedented move.
Chinese fighter jets have done hundreds of landings and take-offs from the carriers. A few came close to Japanese surveillance planes, prompting Tokyo to convey its "serious concerns" to Beijing.
China has said its activities are consistent with international law and accused Japan of conducting "dangerous moves".
On Tuesday, the Japanese defence ministry released a map tracing the Chinese aircraft carriers' daily positions since 25 May. Japan does not usually disclose details of foreign militaries' movements.
It shows both carriers coming close to Japanese islands, and at times sailing through Japan's exclusive economic zone.
The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond a country's territorial waters where that country has exclusive rights to explore and exploit marine resources, but other countries are allowed freedom of navigation through it.
The map also shows the Liaoning sailing past the "second island chain", a line of defence outlined in US foreign policy doctrine that connects Japan to Guam. This makes it the first Chinese aircraft carrier to do so , according to Japanese news outlets.
Japan's defence ministry also said they had observed more than 500 landings and take-offs of Chinese fighter jets and helicopters during the drills.
On 7 June, a Chinese fighter jet took off from the Shandong and followed a Japanese surveillance aircraft for about 40 minutes, according to Tokyo. The next day, a Chinese fighter jet flew close to a Japanese plane for twice that duration, and crossed in front of it.
Japan's chief cabinet secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said last week that they relayed to Beijing their concern about these "abnormal approaches" which could have caused accidental collisions.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said that their "activities in relevant waters and air space are consistent with international law and international practices", and that the two countries were communicating through existing channels.
"Let me point out that it is the close-in reconnaissance of Japan's vessels and airplanes on China's normal military activities that has caused maritime and air security risks. China urges Japan to stop those dangerous moves," he said.
As its two carriers continue to sail through the Pacific, China's military gave an update on Tuesday on its newest carrier, the Fujian. It said sea trials were on track and the carrier is expected to enter service later this year.
The Fujian will be their first carrier that will employ electromagnetic catapults to launch their planes - a technology that currently only American aircraft carriers possess.
The technology allows a carrier to launch a wider range of aircraft, and launch fighter jets much faster.
China's fighter jets will also be able to take off with their full fuel and weapon loads from the Fujian, noted a Global Times report, and the carrier would enable a "significantly higher" number of sorties compared to its predecessors.
This month's drill follows February's much-scrutinised naval exercise in the Tasman Sea that prompted concern from Australia and New Zealand.
Canberra and Wellington had complained Beijing had given insufficient notice of the drill, and some commercial planes had to be diverted last minute.
Australia's defence minister Richard Marles later acknowledged that the naval exercise was in accordance with international law, while at the same time urging China to be more transparent about the reasons for what he called an "extraordinary military build-up".
China's latest moves come as the US promises to maintain its presence in the Indo-Pacific while balancing other commitments.
Last month US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasised the US's solidarity with the region, saying the US would not be pushed out of Asia nor allow its allies to be intimidated. China in response accused the US of being the "biggest troublemaker" in Asia.
But on Monday the US aircraft carrier USS Nimitz left the South China Sea. Multiple outlets have reported it is moving to the Middle East, as the war between Israel and Iran deepens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
24 minutes ago
- Associated Press
U.S., China announce a trade agreement - again. Here's what it means
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and China have reached an agreement — again — to deescalate trade tensions. But details are scarce, and the latest pact leaves major issues between the world's two biggest economies unresolved. President Donald Trump said late Thursday that a deal with China had been signed 'the other day.'' China's Commerce Ministry confirmed Friday that some type of arrangement had been reached but offered few details about it. Sudden shifts and a lack of clarity have been hallmarks of Trump's trade policy since he returned to the White House determined to overturn a global trading system that he says is unfair to the United States and its workers. He's been engaged for months in a battle with China that has mostly revealed how much pain the two countries can inflict on each other. And he's racing against a July 8 deadline to reach deals with other major U.S. trading partners. The uncertainty over his dealmaking and the cost of the tariffs, which are paid by U.S. importers and usually passed on to consumers, have raised worries about the outlook for the U.S. economy. And although analysts welcomed the apparent easing of tensions with China, they also warned that the issues dividing Washington and Beijing are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. What did the two sides agree to? U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that the Chinese had agreed to make it easier for American firms to acquire Chinese magnets and rare earth minerals critical for manufacturing and microchip production. Beijing had slowed exports of the materials amid a bitter trade dispute with the Trump administration. Without explicitly mentioning U.S. access to rare earths, the Chinese Commerce Ministry said that 'China will, in accordance with the law, review and approve eligible export applications for controlled items. In turn, the United States will lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China.'' The Chinese have complained about U.S. controls on exports of advanced U.S. technology to China. But the ministry statement did not specifically say whether the United States planned to ease or lift those controls. In his interview on Fox Business Network's 'Mornings with Maria,' Bessent mentioned that the United States had earlier imposed 'countermeasures'' against China and 'had held back some vital supplies for them.'' 'What we're seeing here is a de-escalation under President Trump's leadership,'' Bessent said, without spelling out what concessions the United States had made or whether they involved America's export controls. Jeff Moon, a trade official in the Obama administration who now runs the China Moon Strategies consultancy, wondered why Trump hadn't disclosed details of the agreement two days after it had been reached. 'Silence regarding the terms suggests that there is less substance to the deal than the Trump Administration implies,″ said Moon, who also served as a diplomat in China. Wait. This sounds familiar. How did we get here? The agreement that emerged Thursday and Friday builds on a 'framework'' that Trump announced June 11 after two days of high-level U.S.-China talks in London. Then, he announced, China had agreed to ease restrictions on rare earths. In return, the United States said it would stop seeking to revoke the visas of Chinese students on U.S. college campuses. And last month, after another meeting in Geneva, the two countries had agreed to dramatically reduce massive taxes they'd slapped on each other's products, which had reached as high as 145% against China and 125% against the U.S. Those triple-digit tariffs threatened to effectively end trade between the United States and China and caused a frightening sell-off in financial markets. In Geneva, the two countries agreed to back off and keep talking: America's tariffs went back down to a still-high 30% and China's to 10%. That led to the talks in London earlier this month and to this week's announcement. Where does all this leave U.S.-China economic relations? If nothing else, the two countries are trying to ratchet down tensions after demonstrating how much they can hurt each other. 'The U.S. and China appear to be easing the chokeholds they had on each other's economies through export controls on computer chips and rare earth minerals, respectively,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'This is a positive step but a far cry from signaling prospects of a substantial de-escalation of tariffs and other trade hostilities.'' Trump launched a trade war with China in his first term, imposing tariffs on most Chinese goods in a dispute over China's attempts to supplant U.S. technological supremacy. Trump's trade team charged that China was unfairly subsidizing its own tech companies, forcing U.S. and other foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology in exchange for access to the Chinese market and even engaging outright theft of trade secrets. The squabbling and negotiating of the past few months appear to have done little to resolve Washington's complaints about unfair Chinese trade practices and America's massive trade deficit with China, which came to $262 billion last year. This week's agreement 'includes absolutely nothing related to the U.S.'s concerns regarding China's trade surplus or non-market behavior,'' said Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'If the two sides can implement these elements of the ceasefire, then they could begin negotiations on issues which generated the initial escalation in tensions in the first place.'' What is happening with Trump's other tariffs? Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has made aggressive use of tariffs. In addition to his levies on China, he has imposed 'baseline'' 10% taxes on imports from every country in the world . And he's announced even higher taxes — so-called reciprocal tariffs ranging from 11% to 50% — on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit. But after financial markets sank on fears of massive disruption to world trade, Trump suspended the reciprocal levies for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate reductions in their barriers to U.S. exports. That pause lasts until July 8. On Friday, Bessent told Fox Business Network that the talks could extend beyond the deadline and be 'wrapped up by Labor Day'' Sept. 1 with 10 to 12 of America's most important trading partners. Trump further played down the July 8 deadline at a White House press conference Friday by noting that negotiations are ongoing but that 'we have 200 countries, you could say 200 countries-plus. You can't do that.' Instead of new trade deals, Trump said his administration would in coming days or weeks send out a letter where 'we're just gonna tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States.'' Separately, Trump took sudden aim at Canada Friday, saying on social media that he's immediately suspending trade talks with that country over its plan to impose a tax on technology firms next Monday. Trump called Canada's digital services tax 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' The digital services tax will hit companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion bill due at the end of the month. ____ AP Writers Didi Tang and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Contra John Lennon In 1980, The Chinese Are Eating. Let's Celebrate It
NEW YORK - CIRCA 1973: Former Beatle John Lennon poses for a photo circa 1973 in New York City, New ... More York. (Photo by) John Lennon recorded 'Nobody Told Me' on August 7, 1980. In the song he famously told listeners 'They're starving back in China so finish what you got.' It was recently reported that since the 1980s, 800 million Chinese have risen out of poverty. Stop and think about that, particularly in relation to Lennon's lyrics. While today there are 5,500 McDonald's in China, in 1980 there were none. The first China-based store opened in October of 1990. The Chinese are eating. While communism is the ideology of desperation, and per Lennon, starvation, its antithesis is the stuff of abundance. McDonald's everywhere you look abundance. Because China used to be communist, food used to be scarce. That food isn't scarce now tells us China is no longer communist. Really, what else could rising acquisitiveness (including a particular fondness for American plenty) signal? Unless the Chinese people are superhuman such that they're uniquely capable of overcoming collectivism, it must be said that collectivism long ago ceased to define the Chinese experience. This is a useful distinction to make as politicians and pundits in the U.S. continue to attack Chinese businesses for having the temerity to operate like – yes – profit-motivated American businesses. For the longest time Americans yearned for China to leave communism behind, only for the country to do just that. Evidence supporting the claim that China has tossed communism in the proverbial dustbin can be found in the growing number of businesses that have originated in China, only to expand globally. Think SHEIN, Temu, Baidu, Alibaba, MYbank, TikTok, and countless others not mentioned along with even more on the way. What we're seeing in China is proof of what we Americans have long believed: when people are free, they prosper. The previous truth is almost trite it's so simple, but true it is. The Chinese weren't formerly desperately poor and starving because they lacked talent or drive, but because an unnatural, anti-human ideology was foisted on them in cruel fashion. Thankfully once again China is no longer communist. No doubt its ruling political party is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but the name no longer fits the ideology. Though the CCP oversees China, it now oversees a market economy. Yes, the CCP is no longer communist. Things have changed because views do. Americans know this well. A Republican Party long associated with free trade and reverence for business increasingly embraces tariffs while attacking the best and brightest of U.S. commerce. The change in the Republican party not infrequently reveals itself in its support for the political harassment of businesses with Chinese origins that are prospering in the U.S. The explanation used for the persecution of Chinese businesses is their 'mandated allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party.' It's just a veiled excuse for protectionism, one that glosses over the happy fact that the Chinese Communist Party is no longer communist. See the 800 million who've escaped poverty since Lennon recorded 'Nobody Told Me.' Lennon's words have a dated quality to them precisely because the Chinese are eating. And they're eating because China is no longer communist. Let's celebrate this truth, rather than harassing and banning the businesses that confirm it.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom demanded $787M from Fox News in his defamation lawsuit. The number isn't a coincidence.
Gavin Newsom alleges Fox News defamed him by misrepresenting a call with Trump. He asked for $787 million in damages, echoing the amount Fox News paid to settle Dominion's lawsuit. Newsom's lawsuit also cites a defamation suit Trump filed against CBS. California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday, accusing the media company of defaming him by misrepresenting his interactions with President Donald Trump. The figure Newsom demanded in damages might sound familiar: $787 million. That's nearly identical to the $787.5 million that Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corporation, agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 after the media company promoted falsehoods that the election technology company rigged the 2020 presidential election. Dominion's lawsuit was filed in Delaware Superior Court, the same venue where Newsom filed his lawsuit on Friday. Newsom's private lawyers, Michael Teter and Mark Bankston, worked with the same Wilmington-based law firm that Dominion used, Farnan LLP, to file their suit in the Delaware court. Newsom alleges Fox News defamed him by calling him a liar when he denied speaking with President Donald Trump on June 9. Around that time, Trump had sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles over Newsom's objections. Demonstrators had held protests around the city in opposition to the president's immigration policies. At a press conference on June 10, Trump said he spoke to Newsom "a day ago." In fact, Newsom says, they spoke for 16 minutes around midnight on June 7 Eastern time (or June 6 Pacific time), the day Trump first sent the troops. Newsom posted phone records on social media showing the timing of their call. But his lawsuit says Fox News host John Roberts misled readers about the timing in his own social media posts, anyway. The lawsuit also says Jesse Watters, a Fox opinion host, falsely called him a liar. "Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?" Watters said, according to the suit. The chyron on the screen at the time read "Gavin lied about Trump's call," the lawsuit says. Newsom's lawsuit says Fox News hasn't learned the lessons of the Dominion lawsuit, and that it misled its viewers for political reasons. "Unfortunately, the past two years have shown that the Dominion settlement did not serve as the deterrent many had predicted, as Fox has continued to launder the stream of false information flowing out of the White House," the lawsuit says. "Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him," Fox News said in a statement. "We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed." Dominion's lawsuit proved embarrassing for Fox News. Depositions and emails obtained by the election technology company during the litigation process showed that then-host Tucker Carlson said he "passionately" hated Trump and that Rupert Murdoch wanted to make the now-president a "non-person" after the 2020 election. The company is also defending a separate pending lawsuit from Smartmatic, another election technology company that says it was defamed, in a New York court. Fox News has denied the allegations in Smartmatic's case, which remains ongoing. The First Amendment makes it difficult for public figures, like Newsom, to succeed in defamation lawsuits. They must prove in court that the defendant acted with "actual malice," meaning the company or person knew they were lying or recklessly disregarded the truth. In a demand letter to Fox News, Newsom's lawyers said he would voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit if the outlet "retracts the claim that he lied when speaking about President Trump not calling him on June 9," and Watters issues an on-air apology. "If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case," Newsom said in a statement. "I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine." Trump himself has sued numerous media outlets, many having been dismissed. Disney settled a lawsuit with him earlier this year, and he is in ongoing settlement discussions with Paramount over a "60 Minutes" episode on CBS News that he says misleadingly edited an interview with Kamala Harris. Trump sued CBS in Texas, alleging it violated the state's consumer protection laws by editing an interview with Kamala Harris in a way he says is misleading. Newsom sued Fox on Friday under a similar California law. He said Fox "intentionally misled the public by purposefully broadcasting a deceptively edited video." "As President Trump has stated in his own complaint, 'News organizations…are responsible for accurately reporting the truth of events, not distorting an interview to try and falsely make their preferred candidate appear coherent and decisive,'" Newsom's lawsuit says, quoting from Trump's. Read the original article on Business Insider
