FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

China’s Air Defence Identification Zone

by BINOY KAMPMARK

The Chinese are certainly getting cocky in the cockpit, though they are doing so with occasional moments of refrain.  Beijing claimed on Thursday that there was “no question” of an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) being established near the Indian-Chinese border.  The argument is, as with such belligerent moves, a mixture of fact and fiction.  For Beijing, the claim has been made that such zones are set up by littoral countries in international airspace (Hindu, Nov 29).  No need to fret, then.

The undergraduate logistics of an ADIZ was explained by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang. “I want to clarify that on the concept of an ADIZ, it is an area of airspace established by a coastal state beyond its territorial airspace.” India has little reason to be concerned.

The fretting had, in fact, already been several days old.  It had everything to do with China’s East Asian neighbours, and that great cyclopean power, the United States.  On Saturday, an announcement was made about the creation of China’s first ADIZ covering areas around the disputed East China Sea islands, otherwise known as the Senkaku or Diaoyu islets.

Central here is the rather nasty bickering taking place between Japan and China over control over those tiny territories.  Chinese officials do not shy away from the fact that Japan set up its own ADIZ in 1969.  The suggestion there is that China is still in swaddling clothes when it comes to the business of imposing such zones.

U.S. Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel called the move “a destabilising attempt to alter the status quo in the region”.  Such a “unilateral act” had the prospects of increasing “the risk of misunderstandings and miscalculations.”  Little Australia decided to chime in, claiming some role in dictating to Beijing whether it should, or should not be engaging in such acts.  Canberra went so far as to actually summon the Chinese ambassador to discuss concerns over the new policy. According to its foreign minister, Julie Bishop, the “timing and manner” of China’s new policy was “unhelpful in light of current regional tensions.”

One fear here is that such zones have a habit of crowding and crossing over with others.  In that sense, the Chinese official classes are correct: some countries just have a general habit of imposing them, and Beijing wants to join the stampede.  The Chinese Foreign Ministry has been doing its homework, though the issue as to what the airforce and military do in its stead remains pressing.  When the warnings are made, the unsheathing of the sword can be expected.  And a combatant with an unsheathed sword with nowhere to go is an embarrassing sight indeed.

That it has taken crawling steps into a new realm of strategy, or at the very least, the fictional guise of exerting force over various areas of control, suggests that Beijing wants its place in the sun. In itself, the ADIZ does nothing more than impose a regulatory framework over air traffic at the behest of the noisy dictating power.  The Chinese defence ministry suggested that aircraft had to report a flight plan, “maintain two-war radio communications”, and “respond in a timely and accurate manner” to queries on identification (BBC, Nov 26).  Failure to do so would result in a shower of rhetoric and threats about various “consequences”.

This is the voyeuristic bully boy in action, and Beijing is far from the first.  The chattering classes are wondering whether this will, in fact, pose any significant change.  The demagogues in favour of Beijing see this as a justifiable and strident assertion of power in the face of rivals.  The other side of the coin is that such boisterous behaviour is misplaced unless the fangs show.  Then there are those who wish to see a non-militaristic China, China as a rapacious consumer economy more interested in the buck than the bang.

The response from Washington was certainly immediate, testing the limits of what the ADIZ actually meant.  Two unaccompanied B-52 bombers went on what was termed a “routine” flight, and similarly routine flights were flown by South Korean and Japanese civilian carriers, including Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airlines, without advance filing of path routes.

U.S. Colonel Steve Warren at the Pentagon announced that, “We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies.” To every bully, and even bigger bully can be found, strutting down to the challenge.

Such a zone is a nonsense on rather unreliable stilts, a mirage at international law without the motivating force to back it.  For that reason, it is dangerous for firstly undermining the credibility of Beijing’s policy on the one hand, while giving force to the unpredictability about what it might do when pushed further.  This in itself is not an argument against having one – it is axiomatic that the existence of such zones will invariably lead to their adoption in other contexts.  Much of the fury at China, in that sense, is misdirected, most notably from Washington’s imperial emissaries.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail