Chinese Foreign Affairs News & Discussions

[Martian2]

China's Military Spending to Double by 2015 - Report - China Real Time Report - WSJ

"China’s Military Spending to Double by 2015 – Report
by Jeremy Page
February 14, 2012, 3:14 PM HKT

Chinese Air Force J-10 fighter jets take off during training in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. (Associated Press)

China’s defense budget will double by 2015, making it more than the rest of the Asia Pacific region’s combined, according to a report from IHS Jane’s, a global think tank specializing in security issues.

Beijing’s military spending will reach $238.2 billion in 2015, compared with $232.5 billion for rest of the region, according to the report. That would also be almost four times the expected defense budget of Japan, the next biggest in the region, in 2015, the report said.

The new report was released as China’s Vice President, Xi Jinping, arrived in Washington at the start of a four-day visit to the U.S. that is seen as a prelude to his expected promotion to Communist Party chief in a once-a-decade leadership change in the fall.

Mr Xi, who is also Vice Chairman of the Party’s Central Military Commission, is due to visit the Pentagon on Tuesday after meeting his counterpart, Joe Biden, and Presdent Obama at the White House earlier in the day.

Ahead of the visit, he and other Chinese officials had expressed concern about the U.S. decision to refocus its military strategy on Asia last year, and complained of a “trust deficit” between Beijing and Washington.

China says that its military spending does not pose a threat to any other country, and has repeatedly pointed out that it still represents a tiny fraction of U.S. defense spending. But the new research highlights what U.S. officials are worried about: That China is rapidly increasing its military spending without being sufficiently transparent about its strategic intentions in the region.

Many of China’s neighbors have been alarmed in the last year or two by what they see as Beijing’s more assertive stance on territorial issues, especially over the South China Sea.

China says its defense budget for 2011 increased by 12.7 percent to about $91.5 billion, but many defense experts believe its real military spending is much higher.

IHS Jane’s put the figure for 2011 at $119.8 billion, and predicted it would increase by an average of 18.75 percent annually until 2015.

“China’s investment will race ahead at an eye watering 18.75 percent, leaving Japan and India far behind,” said Paul Burton, senior principal analyst of IHS Jane’s Defence Budgets.

He added that Taiwan’s defense spending was expected to have overtaken Singapore’s by 2015, while Vietnam and Indonesia were also forecast to increase military expenditure at a rate that exceeds GDP growth.

Rajiv Biswas, chief Asia Pacific economist for IHS Global Insight, was quoted saying: “Beijing has been able to devote an increasingly large portion of its overall budget towards defence and has been steadily building up its military capabilities for more than two decades.”

He continued: “This will continue unless there is an economic catastrophe. Conversely Japan and India may have to hold back due to significant economic challenges.”

Responding to the report, the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid published by the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, did not dispute IHS Jane’s projections but warned against Western powers “with an axe to grind” using China’s military budget to promote the idea of a China threat.

The aim of China’s defense modernization “is safeguard national unity and security,” the paper said (in Chinese). Adhering to the policy of coordinated development of national defense and the economy, investment in national defense has always occurred on a moderate and reasonable scale.”

AIRSHOW-Asia's biggest arms, aerospace event begins under China shadow | Reuters

"* China defence spending to hit $238 billion by 2015

* Japan spending constrained by Fukushima disaster
...
IHS Jane's said in a report that while all major Asian nations are forecast to increase spending on defence, China's military budget will soar to $238.20 billion by 2015 from $119.80 billion last year, growing about 18.75 percent per annum.

That number will exceed spending by all other nations in the region combined, but compares with a base U.S. defence budget of $525.40 billion for 2013.

In Asia, Japan and India follow China in defence spending, but both may be constrained in coming years while China is likely to steam ahead, underpinned by strong economic growth, analysts said.

"Japan's government debt and the investment needed after Fukushima will impact defence spend. We will increasingly see budget channeled towards key programmes and equipment," said Rajiv Biswas, chief economist in the Asia-Pacific for IHS Global Insight.

"India's government debt and fiscal deficit is very high as a share of GDP, and the rupee depreciated significantly in 2011, all of which will limit India's defence ambitions."

Nevertheless, Japan's defence budget is forecast to rise to $66.60 billion by 2015 from $60.30 billion last year. India's military expenditure is likely to be $44.90 billion in 2015 from $35.40 billion in 2011."

 

[Martian2]

US to help build Philippine maritime force but won’t take sides on South China Sea dispute

"US to help build Philippine maritime force but won’t take sides on South China Sea dispute
By Associated Press, Published: April 30

WASHINGTON — The US says it will help build the Philippines' sea patrol capability but will not take sides in that nation's standoff with China at a disputed shoal in the South China Sea.

The top diplomats and defense officials of the treaty allies held their first joint meeting Monday and discussed the three-week standoff at the Scarborough Shoal.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reaffirmed US commitment to its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, and to freedom of navigation and regional security. She reiterated support for a diplomatic resolution to territorial disputes.

A joint statement said they would cooperate on building the Philippines' maritime security capabilities. The US will transfer a second ship to the poorly equipped Philippine navy this year."

----------

My observation: Common sense should dictate that the United States is not about to engage China in a major war (which may take decades) over a historical Chinese rock in the South China Sea. The Filipinos have been living in a fantasy world for believing otherwise.

Similarly, the Georgians thought the United States would fight a major war on their behalf against Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Keep dreaming.

Secondary reference link: US won't take sides in Philippine-China sea dispute, Clinton says

 

[Martian2]

It belongs to China

"It belongs to China
By Victor N. Arches II
Posted April 28th, 2012 by Manila Standard Today & filed under Opinion.

The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).

By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.

But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?

So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?

In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.

All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.

But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.

On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.

Whom are we fooling?"

[Note: Thank you to EastWind for the newslink.]

 

[White Lightning]

FIDAE 2012: FAdeA to push ahead with Chinese helicopter production

Officials from Fabrica Argentina de Aviones (FAdeA) say they hope to fly their first locally assembled Z-11 light helicopter at the end of this year.
The plans follow a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed with Chinese helicopter company Avicopter and its parent CATIC in October 2011 to assemble the Z-11 light helicopter for both the Argentine and the Latin American market.

 

[Martian2]

Chinese dual-use 8-axle truck was most likely sold for civilian purposes

Experts: North Korea missile carrier likely from China - Washington Times

"Experts: North Korea missile carrier likely from China
By Peter Enav - Associated Press
Thursday, April 19, 2012

** FILE ** In this April 15, 2012, file photo, a North Korean vehicle carrying a missile passes by during a mass military parade in Pyongyang’s Kim Il Sung Square to celebrate the centenary of the birth of the late North Korean founder Kim Il Sung. The enormous, 16-wheel truck used to carry the missile, likely came from China in a possible violation of U.N. sanctions meant to rein in Pyongyang’s missile program, experts say. (AP Photo/David Guttenfelder, File)

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — The enormous, 16-wheel truck that North Korea used to carry a missile during a recent parade likely came from China in a possible violation of U.N. sanctions meant to rein in Pyongyang’s missile program, experts say.

The carrier, also believed capable of launching missiles, caught the eye of experts during last Sunday’s military show in Pyongyang because it was the biggest carrier yet displayed by North Korea and gives the country— truculently at odds with the U.S., Japan and South Korea — the ability to transport long-range missiles around its territory, making them harder to locate and destroy.

The large size of the vehicle “represents a quantum leap forward” for the North Koreans, said Wendell Minnick, a reporter on Asian military developments for Defense News, a Washington-based publication.

Unlikely to have been made by North Korea because of its technical sophistication, experts said the design of the vehicle shows that China is the probable source. Pinning a sanctions-busting charge on Beijing would be difficult, however, because it would be hard to prove that Beijing provided the technology for military purposes or even that it sold the vehicle directly to North Korea, the experts said.

The vehicle also can be used in other fields, like oil exploration. At the same time North Korea might have gotten it from another country in a re-export deal.

“It’s very possible there was no intended violation of sanctions by China on this piece of equipment,” said arms transfer expert Pieter Wezeman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

On Thursday,China denied any wrongdoing in connection with the vehicle’s appearance at the North Korean parade. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told a regular news conference that China is against the spread of weapons of mass destruction and carriers for such weapons. He said China follows international laws and has strict rules against the spread of such weapons.

Analyst Ted Parsons of IHS Jane's Defence Weekly first raised the possibility that the missile-carrying vehicle came from China, citing similarities to Chinese design patterns in the windscreen, the windscreen wiper configuration, the door and handle, the grill, the front bumper lighting configurations, and the cabin steps.

“The 16-wheel TEL is apparently based on a design from the 9th Academy of the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation,” he said.

China military analyst Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in suburban Washington agreed, citing technological challenges as a major reason to believe that Pyongyang could not have developed the vehicle on its own.

“This is definitely a CASIC vehicle that was probably produced specifically for export to North Korea,” Fisher said. “The North Koreans don’t have the ability to make something like this themselves.”

Fisher said that keeping the 16 wheels in alignment would present a particular challenge to North Korea, because of the requirement to develop a sophisticated on board computer system.

This kind of system, he said, was “almost certainly beyond them.”

CASIC designs vehicles of up to 21-meter-long (68 feet) trucks with maximum loading capacity of 122 tons for production at its Hubei Sanjiang Space Wanshan Special Vehicles Co., Ltd. in central China.

CASIC’s press office did not respond to request for comment. A company statement from October 2010 cited the export of the first 16-wheel vehicle without specifying the purchasing country. The sales department of Hubei Sanjiang confirmed that a vehicle or vehicles of the 16-wheel type had been sold abroad, but refused to disclose the buyer, saying it was “a secret.”

While agreeing that the vehicle in Sunday’s parade probably came from China, Wezeman cautioned that it would be difficult to prove that Beijing had violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 of October 14, 2006 in providing it to North Korea. That measure bans countries from supplying Pyongyang with items related to ballistic missiles.

“The vehicle could have been re-exported to North Korea from a third country, such as Pakistan, which is known to have used Chinese chassis for its medium range ballistic and other missiles, or North Korea could have used a front company to obscure that it was the buyer” Wezeman said. “Also it is possible that it was supplied to North Korea for civilian purposes such as construction.”

CASIC descriptions of its 16-wheel vehicle make specific reference to its possible use in civilian activities including oil exploration.

While acknowledging the possibility that the vehicle seen in Sunday’s parade was re-exported from Pakistan, Fisher was adamant that it had almost certainly been built in China for North Korean customers.

“I think that CASIC has put together as many as six or seven of these vehicles and that maybe half of them have been sold to Pyongyang,” he said.

On Thursday Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that following the Pyongyang parade, a UN Security Council investigation into the possibility of a sanctions breach was under way.

China, North Korea’s main political and economic ally, supported the passage of the Security Council resolution banning the provision of missile related items to North Korea. But it is also determined to ensure that Pyongyang’s current rulers remain in power, and to that end provides the regime military and other assistance."

----------

U.S. Takes China ‘At Word’ on N. Korea Sanctions | Defense News | defensenews.com

"U.S. Takes China ‘At Word’ on N. Korea Sanctions
Apr. 19, 2012 - 07:45PM | By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

A missile is transported on a vehicle during a military pararade April 15 commemorating the 100th birth anniversary of former North Korean President Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang. (KCNA via KNS via AFP)

WASHINGTON — The United States said April 19 that it believed China’s assurances that it is abiding by sanctions on North Korea after charges that Beijing supplied technology for a missile launcher.

IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly said that U.N. officials are investigating allegations that China violated sanctions imposed by the Security Council after North Korea unveiled the 16-wheel launcher at a military parade.

“China has provided repeated assurances that it’s complying fully with both Resolution 1718 as well 1874. We’re not presently aware of any U.N. probe into this matter,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

“I think we take them at their word,” Toner said, adding that he was not aware of specific conversations between the United States and China about the launcher.

North Korea showed off the launcher, carrying an apparently new medium-range missile, as part of national celebrations on April 15 for the centennial of the birth of the regime’s founder Kim Il-Sung.

Quoting an unidentified official, IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly said China could be in breach of the two resolutions approved after North Korea’s 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests if it passed along the vehicle since then.

U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, who heads a panel of the House Armed Services Committee, asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and intelligence chief James Clapper to investigate whether China supplied the launcher’s technology.

In a letter, Turner quoted military specialist Richard Fisher as telling him that the launcher was “very likely based on a Chinese design” and that the technology transfer would have required a green light from Beijing.

“I am sure you agree that the United States cannot permit a state such as the People’s Republic of China to support — either intentionally or by a convenient lack of attention — the ambitions of a state like North Korea to threaten the security of the American people,” the Ohio Republican wrote.

“Indeed, the possibility of such cooperation undermines the administration’s entire policy of investing China with the responsibility of getting tough on North Korea.”

China, which holds a veto on the Security Council, is the main supporter of North Korea, although it voiced misgivings over Pyongyang’s defiant rocket launch last week.

North Korea described the launch as an unsuccessful bid to put a satellite into orbit, but the United States said it was a disguised missile test.

Separately, Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reported April 18 that China has stopped sending back fleeing North Koreans in retaliation for its ally’s failure to consult Beijing over its rocket launch.

China’s repatriations have triggered wide criticism overseas, with human rights groups saying that North Koreans face imprisonment, forced abortions and even sometimes execution if returned home.

“We obviously hope that the media reports are true,” Toner said.

But the spokesman said the United States could not confirm a change in China’s policy.

“We consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations as part of the U.N. Convention on Refugees,” he said."

 

[Martian2]

Xi Jinping (China's president-in-waiting) received 19-gun salute from the United States

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (center) [visited the United States in February 2012] where he met U.S. President Barack Obama. (Source: CNN)

AFP: China's defense chief visits Pentagon amid diplomatic row

"China's defense chief visits Pentagon amid diplomatic row
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
...
In February, China's heir apparent Vice President Xi Jinping was welcomed at the Pentagon during an official trip to the United States where he was honored with a 19-gun salute, a privilege rarely accorded to foreign dignitaries."

 

[Martian2]

Xi Jinping (China's president-in-waiting) received 19-gun salute from the United States

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (center) [visited the United States in February 2012] where he met U.S. President Barack Obama. (Source: CNN)

AFP: China's defense chief visits Pentagon amid diplomatic row

"China's defense chief visits Pentagon amid diplomatic row
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
...
In February, China's heir apparent Vice President Xi Jinping was welcomed at the Pentagon during an official trip to the United States where he was honored with a 19-gun salute, a privilege rarely accorded to foreign dignitaries."

Why is this important?

1. Read the citation, it is rare.

2. Despite the anti-Chinese tone in most of the American media, the United States government has consistently shown proper respect to the Chinese government. Actions speak louder than rhetoric. U.S. action shows that it is treating the Chinese government as an equal by according it honors that it does not show others.

3. The consistent show of respect indicates a mature working relationship between the United States and China.

4. It is not enough to just examine the weapon systems of China and the United States. It is also important to examine the attitudes of the political leadership of both countries and their willingness to use their military tools.

Relations with China: Mr Wen's red carpet | The Economist

"Mr Wen's red carpet
Despite economic tensions, mutual trust between America and China has rarely been deeper. Can it last?
Dec 11th 2003 | WASHINGTON, DC

AMID bafflement, even outrage, from congressmen whose districts have been losing manufacturing jobs in droves to China, George Bush this week laid on what one of his officials called “spectacular” treatment for China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, on his first visit to America. It included a 19-gun salute on the White House's South Lawn, a welcome no head of government (as opposed to a head of state) has been granted by this administration. Given the growing spats between America and China over trade and exchange rates, what is Mr Bush doing cosying up to China—especially with an election due?

The answer has to do with his changed view of the world since September 11th. In fighting Islamic terrorism, America has found China co-operative. China's leaders, after all, have their own Muslim problem: restive Uighurs in the western province of Xinjiang. America's once-loud criticism of China's harsh treatment of such “splittists” and other minorities, notably Tibetans, is now barely audible.

Then there is North Korea and its nuclear-weapons programme. China's attempts since last spring to use what economic and diplomatic leverage it has left with its old and infuriating Communist ally has earned Hu Jintao, the president, and Mr Wen the respect of the Bush administration, which wants to “internationalise” the issue. (article continues)"

 

[Chinese guy]

The U.S. government = cockroaches
all over the world has its shadow

 

[Chinese guy]

The U.S. government = cockroaches
all over the world has its shadow

 

[Martian2]

U.S. allowed China to soar

The U.S. attempt to "contain" China has been pretty tame compared to the squeeze on the Soviet Union.

1. There is no Asian NATO.

2. The U.S. blocked trade with the Soviet Union via the Jackson-Vanik trade sanction law. "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) status for the Soviet Union/Russia had been withheld for decades until Russia joined the WTO in December of last year.

In contrast, U.S. MFN was granted to China in the 1990s (see Most favoured nation).

In reality, the U.S. granted China free trade status after 1980. China could not have become an economic trade giant without active U.S. support.

Permanent normal trade relations

"For many years, People's Republic of China was the most important country in this group which required an annual waiver to maintain free trade status. The waiver for the PRC had been in effect since 1980. Every year between 1989 and 1999, legislation was introduced in Congress to disapprove the President's waiver. The legislation had sought to tie free trade with China to meeting certain human rights conditions that go beyond freedom of emigration. All such attempted legislation failed to pass."

3. The U.S. wouldn't let the Soviet Union/Russia into the WTO until last year. China joined the WTO ten years ago.

4. Not only did the United States open its market to Chinese goods for decades, the United States opened its universities to Taiwanese (i.e. ethnic Chinese) and mainland Chinese. Let's be honest, U.S. universities opened up our minds and now we're all super-smart. Hehe.

In conclusion, I (for one) am grateful to the United States. Let us hope that we can build an enduring Sino-American friendship. The Chinese standard of living continues to rise dramatically year-after-year and Chinese industries are starting to dominate in one sector after another. While it is true that Chinese work very hard, it is also due to decades of accommodation by the Big Guy (aka Hyperpower).

 

[Martian2]

Telling the world about Chinese sovereignty over Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal

The highest-rated comment on the Christian Science Monitor regarding China's Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal happens to be mine. (Click on comments at the following link: China blames the Philippines for South China Sea dispute - CSMonitor.com)

Oh look, here I am again on the Voice of America.

My comment shows up on United Press International (UPI)

I'm also on the political website "The Hill" as the lone comment.

I have the only comment on OilVoice.

Finally, I take it into the heart of the lion's den (i.e. the enemy camp) and post on the Philippine Online Chronicles.

 

[Martian2]

Back on Voice of America Again!

It's another day and the voice of China Lee (my preferred pseudonym) is still going strong! Here I am again on the Voice of America!

My comment is the one labeled as "Top Commenter."

 

[Martian2]

China begins to drill for oil in the South China Sea

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-05/09/c_131576610.htm

"China begins deep-water drilling in South China Sea
English.news.cn 2012-05-09 09:54:47

BEIJING, May 9 (Xinhua) -- China's first deep-water drilling rig started operations in the South China Sea at 9:38 a.m. on Wednesday, marking "a substantial step" made by the country's deep-sea oil industry.

The sixth-generation semi-submersible CNOOC 981, owned by China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), began drilling in a sea area 320 km southeast of Hong Kong at a water depth of 1,500 meters.

It is the first independent deep-water oil drilling to be conducted by a Chinese company, and China is the first country to explore deep-water oil and gas resources in the South China Sea.

"Large deep-water drilling rigs are our mobile national territory and strategic weapon for promoting the development of the country's offshore oil industry," said CNOOC Chairman Wang Yilin, adding that the drilling would contribute to ensuring the country's energy security and sovereign right over territorial waters.

Wednesday's drilling is the first step for oil and gas exploration in the 25-square-km deep-water region. The rig will complete drilling at a depth of 2,335 meters to reach an estimated 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas, said Shi Hesheng, a geological engineer with CNOOC's Shenzhen subsidiary.

"In a long-term vision, more than 700 million tonnes of oil resources and 1.2 trillion cubic meters of natural gas resources will be found in this area. There are a dozen such areas in the northern part of the South China Sea," Shi said.

Depths greater than 300 meters are internationally recognized as deep waters and those greater than 1,500 meters are ultra-deep waters. Globally, 30 to 40 percent of marine resources are buried in deep waters and about half of major exploration sites are developed offshore.

The South China Sea is estimated to have 23 billion tonnes to 30 billion tonnes of oil and 16 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, accounting for one-third of China's total oil and gas resources.

About 70 percent of oil and gas reserves in the resource-rich South China Sea is contained in 1.54 million square km of deep-water regions.

"The South China Sea has the potential to become the world's fourth-largest deep-water drilling region, after the so-called 'Golden Triangle' of the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil and West Africa," said Zhou Shouwei, a member of Chinese Academy of Engineering.

Subject to a lack of key technologies, most of China's current offshore oil exploration is conducted less than 300 meters below the surface.

The drilling at CNOOC 981 is a historic milestone in the country's deep-water oil and gas exploration efforts, said Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University.

"It will reduce China's oil imports and boost the development of the country's deep-water exploration technologies and equipment," Lin said.

Oil and gas consumption has soared in China amid the country's rapid economic growth and industrialization process. The country relies on imports for more than 55 percent of crude oil and 20 percent of natural gas. Its appetite is expected to grow in the future.

To ease mounting pressure, China has invested huge human and material resources to move its oil drilling into deep waters.

It took 6 billion yuan (952 million U.S. dollars) and more than three years for China State Shipbuilding Corp. (CSSC), the contractor, to build the CNOOC 981 rig for CNOOC.

The platform is 114 meters long, 90 meters wide and 137.8 meters high, and weighs 31,000 tonnes. With a deck the size of a standard football field, the rig is capable of undertaking an offshore operation at a maximum water depth of 3,000 meters and drilling a depth of 12,000 meters, according to CSSC.

Equipped with third-generation dynamic and global positioning systems, the CNOOC 981 can withstand vibrations brought by "once-in-two-centuries storms." Its underwater blow-out prevention system can efficiently prevent accidents like the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, experts said."

[Note: Thank you to Gnak for the post.]

 

[Martian2]

Explaining Chinese sovereignty over Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal on the Los Angeles Times

Let me see...I have posted on the Christian Science Monitor, United Press International (UPI), Voice of America, The Hill, and now Los Angeles Times. Also, my comments are all over YouTube.

The longer that this Sino-Filipino dispute drags out, the more prevalent my comments will become in the mass media.

 

[Martian2]

Let's debate Chinese historical sovereignty over Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal in the Mass Media

Here is the latest conversation on the Christian Science Monitor in the comment section regarding Chinese sovereignty over Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal.