Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
BARBARA EHRENREICH…

BarbaraE

Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle.  We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day10

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

ATheatrical Force

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