China muscling in on US Egyptian ally
Chinese fighter jets, Airborne Early Warning and Control planes, aerial refueling tankers and helicopter gunships have been roaring across the sky alongside Egyptian Air Force warplanes after taking off from Egypt's Wadi Abu Rish Air Base in the desert.
The China-Egypt Eagles of Civilization 2025 joint air force exercise began on April 19 and ends in early May, and is expected to strengthen Beijing's links with the African continent's strongest military and a long-time strategic US ally.
China maintains an East African naval base in Djibouti on the Red Sea. Cairo, hoping to diversify its strategic relations, is now welcoming Beijing's interest and possible Chinese weapons sales.
'This will help enhance technical and tactical capabilities of the two air forces, and deepen substantive cooperation between the Chinese and Egyptian militaries,' China's National Defense Ministry spokesman Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang told a news conference on April 24.
'The joint training will run until early May. The Chinese PLAAF [People's Liberation Army Air Force] aircraft will train in collaboration with assets of the Egyptian Air Force.
'This will help enhance technical and tactical capabilities of the two air forces and deepen substantive cooperation between the Chinese and Egyptian militaries,' Zhang said.
The air combat exercises include Chinese mid-air refueling with a Y-20U aerial tanker, air support, battlefield search and rescue, and a Kong Jing-500 Airborne Warning and Control System.
Beijing also sent China's stealthy J-10 fighter jets, known by NATO as Firebirds, prized for dogfighting maneuverability, precision strikes and ability to be configured with air-to-air and air-to-ground bombs, anti-radiation missiles and a 23mm cannon, reports said quoting the China 3 Army Telegram channel.
Egypt filled the sky with MiG-29M/M2 Fulcrum multi-role fighters and other aircraft from the base, which is about 37.3 kilometers (60 miles) west of the Gulf of Suez and about 2,800 kilometers (4,500 miles) from Beijing.
'The [Chinese] air unit has adopted a mixed force formation that combines air transfer and aerial transportation, which ensured full deployment of all personnel and equipment,' according to China's CCTV.
'It has been suggested that China can use the exercise to train against relatively modern MiG-29s, a type that remains a primary fighter for the Indian Air Force and Navy,' said The War Zone, a Florida-based military website.
'The Egyptian MiG-29M/M2 share many similarities with the Indian Air Force & Indian Navy's MiG-29UPG & MiG-29K such as the same avionics suite,' it said.
'With the real possibility of drastic [US] foreign aid cuts to beneficiaries like Egypt, Cairo could see Beijing as an alternative to Washington's largesse and resulting attached strings,' The War Zone said.
'Significant US military aid to Egypt has been frozen and unfrozen in recent years, as successive US administrations weigh human rights concerns against Cairo's ability to assist in different geopolitical crises,' reported Breaking Defense, a New York-based online military site.
'It is China that is building Egypt's new capital city, intended to be an international gem in beauty, architecture, wealth, and grandeur,' Israeli former intelligence officer and expert on Egypt, Lieutenant Colonel (Res.) Eli Dekel told Maariv news.
China is 'also building at least two very important, large ports in Egypt, in Abu Qir. China has a lot of involvement, so I'm not surprised they are conducting this exercise,' Dekel said, according to the Jerusalem Post.
Abu Qir Peninsula and Bay are on Egypt's Mediterranean coast, northeast of Alexandria, and valued for its natural gas production and sheltered waters.
Richard S Ehrlich is a Bangkok-based American foreign correspondent reporting from Asia since 1978, and winner of Columbia University's Foreign Correspondents' Award. Excerpts from his two new nonfiction books, 'Rituals. Killers. Wars. & Sex. — Tibet, India, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka & New York' and 'Apocalyptic Tribes, Smugglers & Freaks' are available here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
15 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
US must win the battle for AI supremacy over China
The United States and China are engaged in what is likely the defining contest of the century over artificial intelligence and who controls the most advanced technology. At its core, it is a struggle over which nation's values and vision will shape the world's future. It is crucial that the United States, not China, emerges as the leading global power. American leadership has helped build a system based on democracy, transparency, the rule of law and respect for individual rights. While not perfect, it has brought decades of peace, prosperity and expanding freedom. It has enabled open markets, international cooperation and free expression to flourish. China, ruled by the Communist Party, presents a very different model. It is authoritarian and tightly controlled by the state, with little tolerance for dissent or independent institutions. Beijing applies economic and political pressure to advance its agenda both at home and abroad. If China gains influence over global institutions and norms, the world could move away from openness and toward centralized control. This is not a distant or abstract threat. China already uses its growing power to silence critics far beyond its borders. It pressures corporations and governments to avoid challenging its policies. It censors Chinese-language media abroad and targets journalists, scholars and members of the Chinese diaspora. Inside China, the government monitors citizens, marginalizes ethnic minorities, and suppresses political opposition, especially in regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet. China is actively exporting this model. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, it offers infrastructure and technology to developing countries, often with conditions that create dependency and allow Beijing to exert political leverage. Many of these nations become reluctant to criticize China on human rights or issues related to Taiwan. At the same time, China has expanded its influence in global institutions, redirecting conversations away from universal rights and toward a focus on state sovereignty and control. This shift weakens international support for democracy and civil society. In the Asia-Pacific, China's growing assertiveness is impossible to ignore. Its military expansion in the South China Sea, aggressive posturing around Taiwan and increasing pressure on regional neighbors threaten stability. These actions challenge principles such as peaceful conflict resolution and freedom of navigation. The United States must respond with clarity and resolve. This response must go beyond military readiness. It must include leadership in technology, innovation and the global standards that will define the next century. The US must continue investing in research and development and safeguard critical technologies from misuse by authoritarian regimes. For years, American policy assumed that closer economic ties would encourage China to liberalize politically. That assumption has not held. Under Xi Jinping, China has become more centralized, more ideological and more resistant to outside influence. The United States can no longer wait for change to come from within. It must engage in active and sustained competition. Fortunately, the US still holds significant advantages. Its universities are among the best in the world and continue to train global talent. The private sector leads in vital technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing and clean energy. Government and industry collaboration, including through organizations like DARPA, has led to major technological breakthroughs. A robust venture capital system supports rapid innovation and commercialization. The CHIPS and Science Act is a step in the right direction. It aims to restore domestic semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign sources. But more is needed. The United States must expand investment in advanced sectors such as aerospace, robotics and secure communications. Immigration policy is also essential. Attracting and retaining the world's brightest scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs has long been a key American strength and must be preserved. China is not merely trying to catch up. It is working aggressively to leap ahead. Through state subsidies, targeted industrial policies, and illegal practices such as cyber espionage and intellectual property theft, China is closing the gap rapidly. If it overtakes the United States in key technologies, the world could fracture into competing spheres with different rules and competing standards. Countries could be forced to align with one model or the other. This type of global division would carry serious risks. International rules on cybersecurity, data privacy and artificial intelligence could splinter. Global supply chains could become more fragile. Institutions like the World Trade Organization and the United Nations would struggle to function and for relevance. Misunderstandings and mistrust could lead to conflict, and progress on global challenges like climate change and pandemic response could stall. The United States cannot afford to step back and hope the system it built will survive without active leadership. Liberal democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights are under increasing pressure from rising authoritarianism and disruptive technologies. America must shape the future instead of reacting to it. This contest is not about power for power's own sake. It is about securing a global order that remains open, cooperative and respectful of human dignity. If the United States does not lead, China will fill the vacuum, and the global system that has ensured prosperity and stability for over 70 years could erode or collapse. The stakes are enormous. The challenge is urgent. But the outcome is still within America's reach and control. Dr Derek Levine is a professor at Monroe University and the author of 'The Dragon Takes Flight: China's Aviation Policy, Achievements and Implications for the United States and Europe.' His forthcoming book, 'China's Path to Dominance: Preparing for Confrontation with the US' is scheduled for release in summer 2025. He has lived, studied and worked extensively in China, and his work has appeared in academic publications such as the Journal of Contemporary China and the American Journal of China Studies. He also contributes insights to media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, BBC, The Guardian and MSNBC.
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Confucian peace myth: East Asia minus US risks disaster
Skip to content History shows the notion of a 'Confucian peace' in East Asia is a myth. Image: X Screengrab Recently, several arguments have emerged suggesting that Korea, Japan and China could peacefully coexist without the US's presence in Northeast Asia. Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs recently argued that China has never invaded Japan in its entire history – aside from two failed attempts – and characterized Japan's incursions into China as anomalies. Citing Harvard sociologist Ezra Vogel, he claimed the two Confucian civilizations enjoyed nearly 2,000 years of relative peace – a striking contrast, he noted, to the near-constant wars between Britain and France. Yonsei University professor Jeffrey Robertson added that, as 'US attention drifts away from East Asia, the unthinkable becomes thinkable' – a region where Europe, Russia, India, and China balance each other imperfectly, but none dominates. Political scientist John Mearsheimer also weighed in: 'If I were the national security adviser to Deng Xiaoping – or Xi Jinping – and they asked me what I thought about the US military presence in East Asia, I'd say, 'I want the Americans out. I don't want them in our backyard.'' This vision of a self-balancing Asia – shared by economists, sociologists, strategists and realists alike – assumes that history, culture and trust can fill the vacuum left by American power. But can it? Sachs's notion of a historical 'Confucian peace' collapses under scrutiny. In his speech, he conveniently omits Korea – arguably the most Confucian state in East Asia – which has frequently been at war with both China and Japan. Consider Goguryeo, one of Korea's ancient kingdoms. Confucianism had already been influential in the region for 400–500 years when Goguryeo emerged. Yet Goguryeo fought multiple wars against various Chinese dynasties: Han, Liaodong, Wei, Lelang, Yan, Sui and Tang. While modern Chinese narratives frame Goguryeo as a tributary, historical records – marked by repeated wars and political stalemates – depict it as a rival power that directly contributed to the collapse of multiple Chinese dynasties. As for Japan, the fact that typhoons thwarted China's attempts to conquer it doesn't mean those efforts lacked seriousness. On the contrary, China was determined. After its initial invasion in 1274 – involving 900 ships and 40,000 troops – ended in failure, it doubled down. In 1281, it returned with 4,400 ships and 140,000 troops – the largest seaborne invasion force in world history before D-Day. To claim that China 'never invaded' simply because these attempts failed is nonsense. These were not theoretical plans – they were full-scale invasions, launched with overwhelming force and clear intent. Typhoons may have stopped them, but they do not erase the historical fact of the invasions themselves. Robertson's claim that the US is 'drifting away' from East Asia is inaccurate. Washington isn't pulling back – it's doubling down. The goal is clear: contain China. This has been official US policy since Hillary Clinton's 2011 article, 'America's Pacific Century,' which outlined a strategic pivot to Asia as the cornerstone of US foreign policy. The US may be distracted by Ukraine and Gaza, but its top strategic priority remains unchanged – and is, in fact, becoming more focused. Washington has bolstered its Indo-Pacific posture through large-scale multinational exercises, such as the 40,000-strong Talisman Sabre in Australia, and expanded military deployments under AUKUS, rotations through Guam and greater access to bases in the Philippines through the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. Mearsheimer says China wants the US out of East Asia. That may seem true on the surface – but the reality is more complicated. After World War II, China initially viewed US security treaties with Japan, Korea and Taiwan as part of a broader strategy to contain its rise. In an October 1971 meeting with US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai accused Washington of using Taiwan and Korea as 'two wings of outward expansion by Japanese expansionist policies.' Zhou Enlai and Henry Kissinger in Beijing in 1971. Photo: Henry Kissinger Archives / Library of Congress In response, Kissinger offered a candid and far-reaching explanation of why the US maintained its military presence in Japan. 'China,' he said, 'has a universal outlook; Japan's has had a tribal outlook.' More than cultural commentary, this was a strategic warning. He argued that 'the Japanese are capable of sudden and explosive changes. They went from feudalism to emperor worship in two to three years, and from emperor worship to democracy in three months.' Such volatility, in Kissinger's view, made a self-armed Japan a latent threat – not because of intent, but because of potential. 'A Japan that defends itself with its own resources will be an objective danger to the region. The US alliance actually restrains it.' He acknowledged the cynical alternative: 'We could cut Japan loose and let it stand on its own. That would trigger tension with China and let us play the middleman.' But he dismissed that option as dangerously shortsighted: 'Either you or we would end up the victim.' Kissinger warned against romanticizing US withdrawal. 'We didn't fight World War II to stop Japan's domination of Asia only to enable it 25 years later. If Japan truly wants us out, we'll leave – but I don't think you should rejoice when that day happens, because some day you may regret it,' he said. The shift in Chinese thinking was so significant that Zhou began to question whether the US could truly restrain what he called the 'wild horse' of Japan. Chairman Mao even encouraged Kissinger to maintain good relations with Japan. 'When you pass through Japan, you should perhaps talk a bit more with them.' On Kissinger's most recent visit, Mao remarked, 'You only talked with them for one day, and that isn't very good for their face.' The conversation took place in 1971, seven years after China had become a nuclear power and while Japan remained non-nuclear. Yet Beijing was still deeply uneasy about what a remilitarized Japan might do without US oversight. That fear lingers to this day – not just in China, but across all the nations that clashed with Japan in the first half of the 20th century. Historian Kenneth Pyle distills Kissinger's view in contemporary terms: The real issue is trust. 'Part of the answer' regarding the continued US presence in Japan, says Pyle, 'lies in a fundamental, often unspoken question in the minds of US policymakers: Can Japan be trusted to participate responsibly in international security affairs?' He continues, 'This Japanese question is at the core of American thinking about its alliance with Japan and beclouds the issue of how Japan should contribute to the maintenance of the international order. Mindful of Japanese nationalism and militarism, world leaders are intensely ambivalent as to whether Japan should enlarge its security role.' 'Prompted by a fear of revived Japanese nationalism, US leaders are extremely circumspect toward Japan. This feeling recurs throughout Asia, in the Soviet Union, and in Europe – indeed, in Japan itself.' 'This concern must be resolved, for it is fundamental to the continued relationship between the United States and Japan and to the potential role of Japan in the changing pattern of international relations in East Asia.' Perhaps the most surprising endorsement of US presence in East Asia comes from an extremely unlikely source – North Korea's Kim Jong Un. In 2022, Mike Pompeo, who had been US secretary of state during Donald Trump's first presidential term, revealed: 'As we developed our relationship more fully, what became very clear is he [Kim Jong Un] views the United States of America on the Korean Peninsula as a bulwark against his real threat, which came from Xi Jinping.' Kim Jong Un rules over what was once the heartland of Goguryeo – and he knows who the real enemy is. He has reportedly told his aides in the past: 'Japan is the 100-year enemy, but China is the 1,000-year enemy.' The real question isn't whether China becomes a hegemon in Asia. It's what comes next. That's what most commentators overlook – yet it carries the gravest consequences. Once a regional power secures dominance, it no longer has to watch its flank – it becomes 'free to roam.' When China eventually pushes into the Western Hemisphere, it will challenge the Monroe Doctrine – Washington's historical red line – for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The resulting showdown could rival, or even surpass, that Cold War standoff. In comparison, current and potential proxy wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, Taiwan and Korea would look like child's play. Calls for an 'Asia without America' might sound like peace. But remove the US and the ghosts of history come rushing in – from Goguryeo's defiance to kamikaze invasions, from Japanese militarism to Cold War paranoia. In Northeast Asia, peace without the US isn't just unlikely – it's historically unprecedented, strategically reckless and potentially catastrophic. Hanjin Lew is a political commentator specializing in East Asian affairs.
South China Morning Post
4 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
The wisdom of Australia's fresh approach to China
Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@ or filling in this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recently concluded visit ('How deals are trumping port dispute on Australian PM Albanese's China visit', July 17 ) is a welcome breath of fresh air in Canberra's approach to China. Since the early 2000s, Australia's economic prosperity has been closely linked with China – Australians became wealthy selling China iron ore, coal and other natural resources that helped power China's extraordinary economic growth and societal transformation. Under the previous Liberal-National coalition government, Australia took an unwise turn in its foreign policy by uncritically siding with the United States and needlessly antagonising China – which culminated in Canberra effectively blaming China for Covid-19 by calling for an independent inquiry into its origins. The past year has shown a world undergoing seismic changes. It is becoming clear that China will emerge as a dominant, if not the dominant, country that masters the industries of the future – such as renewable energy, electric vehicles, biotechnology and artificial intelligence, as most vividly demonstrated by the splashy emergence of DeepSeek's AI model to public awareness.
