What's new

US alarmed by Chinese armour-piercing ammunition

gpit

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
0
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a4e0f544-2df3-11dc-821c-0000779fd2ac.html

US takes China to task over Iraq and Afghan arms
By Demetri Sevastopuloin Washington

Published: July 9 2007 03:00 | Last updated: July 9 2007 03:00

The US has raised concerns with the Chinese government about the discovery of Chinese-made weapons on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Richard Lawless, the departing senior Pentagon official for Asia, on -Friday said that Washington had flagged the issue with -Beijing. US officials have become increasingly alarmed that Chinese armour-piercing ammunition has been used by the Taliban in Afghanistan and by insurgents in Iraq.

A senior US official recently told the Financial Times that Iran appeared to be providing the Chinese-made weapons. The official said Washington had no evidence that Beijing was complicit but stressed that the US would like China to "do a better job of policing these sales". Mr Lawless said the question of origin was less important than who was facilitating the transfer.

As of yesterday, the Chinese foreign ministry had not responded publicly to Mr Lawless' comments.

The concerns about Chinese weapons follow months of allegations from US officials that Iran is aiding attacks on US troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan by providing technology for bombs that can destroy Humvees and other heavily-armoured vehicles.

Mr Lawless also expressed concern about North Korea's missile programme. Pyong-yang last week tested a new short-range missile that could target not only the US military base at Pyeongtaek but also Seoul. He said North Korea was close to being able to field the solid-fuel, highly mobile rocket.

Mr Lawless said the US military relationship with China was "overall, not bad" but stressed there was a need for more engagement between the militaries, particularly at senior levels. "They have been more willing to engage but it is in millimetres and increments," said Mr Lawless.

He said the Pentagon was disappointed that China had not been prepared to provide Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations, with the same access that his Chinese counterpart had received during a visit to the US. Admiral Mullen, who has since been nominated to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ended up not visiting China.

Mr Lawless also said it was important for China to hold talks with the US about its nuclear forces.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
 
.
As of yesterday, the Chinese foreign ministry had not responded publicly to Mr Lawless' comments
:) No need to comment on a Lawless person! Punish him or ignore him.
Kashif
 
.
What is the basic point of Mr. Lawless is China putting him self in it ... I can not imajine this ,
 
.
This report may not be considered a big deal at the first glace. However, one shouldn’t dismiss it lightly. The significance of it may reveal some of the undercurrents between the big players.

The foundation of Sino-US relationship is based on the three communiqués. http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/east_asia_pacific/china/china_communiques.html

February 28, 1972: As the pre-condition of Sino-US relation normalization, US will withdraw from Indo-China. US acknowledges that Taiwan is a part of China.

January 1, 1979: relationship normalized.

August 17, 1982: Resolution of US arms sale to Taiwan specified. Relevant excerpt: http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/joint_communique_1982.html

“Having in mind the foregoing statements of both sides, the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. In so stating, the United States acknowledges China's consistent position regarding the thorough settlement of this issue.”

Very importantly, right after the normalization of the relationship, effective as of January 1, 1979 and approved April 10, 1979 as US internal law, US 96th Congress enacted a “Taiwan Relations Act”. In its article (5), it states: “ to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; ” This opens a US internally lawful route to sale arms to a province of a sovereign country that it recognizes! (On the other words, if China has the guts/capability, it can also follow the example to sale its arms to Taxes or New York! )

US behaviour like this is not a surprise at all. During the beginning of WWII, US president Roosevelt said: “I never let my right hand know what my left hand does”

I’d like to emphasize the part of the 3rd communiqué concerned here:
“its (US) arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.”

What is the fact that stands as of now?http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/taiwanarms.asp

U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan Since 1980 (values not adjusted for inflation):Fiscal Year U.S. Government Arms Agreements U.S. GovernmentArms Deliveries U.S. CommercialArms Deliveries
2002 $71 million $1.5 billion $135 million
2001 270 million 1.18 billion 29 million
2000 135 million 923 million 15 million
1999 559 million 2.5 billion 15.5 million
1998 440 million 1.5 billion 173 million
1997 353 million 2.5 billion 261 million
1996 451 million 834 million 20 million
1995 208 million 1.3 billion 28 million
1994 361 million 845 million 262 million
1993 6.3 billion 815 million 346 million
1992 478 million 711 million 96 million
1991 474 million 548 million 160 million
1990 508 million 460 million 150 million
1989 525 million 353 million 85 million
1988 501 million 484 million 195 million
1987 507 million 368 million 210 million
1986 509 million 243.5 million 228 million
1985 697.5 million 338 million 54 million
1984 704 million 298 million 70 million
1983 695.5 million 389 million 85 million
1982 523 million 386 million 75 million
1981 286 million 373 million 67 million
1980 455 million 209 million 58 million


Obviously, US has blatantly been breaking its promise in the three communiqués! Since the beginning of the normalization of US and China relationship in 1972, US arms sale to Taiwan remains a strong bargain chip for US and is a truly sour point between the two.

On the grand chessboard of world powers, any bargain-chips are utilized to their extreme by each in an attempt to tilt the balance to its own favor.

How could Chinese do nothing but consume the loss? If so, there wouldn't be the Chinese civilization stood high in the East for thousands of years.

On 15 June 2006, Chinese spokeswoman had the following interesting Q and A: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/fyrth/t258306.htm

Q: …Why does China refuse to register with the UN its statistics of conventional weapons transfer in the past eight years?

A:…

UN Register of Conventional Arms is an authoritative and transparent mechanism on conventional weapons transfer within the UN framework, through which information of weapons export and import among members are registered. China attaches importance to it and adopts an active and constructive attitude in registering with the mechanism. However, a handful of countries register their arms sale to China's Taiwan Province, violating the purposes and principle of the mechanism. Therefore, China decides to suspend registration. Our position is clear on this matter. So long as those countries stop registering its weapon export to Taiwan, China will resume participating in the Register.

Should China never let its left hand know what its right hand is doing, how could anybody else know?

In a fair-play game, all parties have to be obligated to a set of rules agreed by all to make it fair. Otherwise, here is arms sale to a province whose country's sovereign is recognized by the seller, there is a fierce armour-piecing weapons ripping off the seller’s amour tower… And that is the game of world powers!
 
.
If it is true, I will be very happy see what happened to the bloody American soliders. Don't forget the United States are selling wepons almost everywhere in the world. People are suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. So many civilians were killed. Now, US can have some feelings of the same. It is not only American lives are valuable.
 
. .
Sir,
Something tells me that, more or less the topic on your lips with a pint in your hand at the local bar is about cyber expert passing "ground breaking" comments :D
 
.
Oh for Pete's sakes! It's called a .30-06 and it existed since 1916!

Though there are no details available and it may not be a new tech., one would reasonably believe that it may go beyond .30-06, unless US armor becomes a sport shooting target. :flame:

BTW, military production of .03-60 started around 1906 (not 1916). Its existance should be even earlier.

Regardless of whatever said above, technical novelty isn't the point.
 
.
Sir,
Something tells me that, more or less the topic on your lips with a pint in your hand at the local bar is about cyber expert passing "ground breaking" comments :D

Undercurrent never breaks ground.
 
.
another hypocracy for the USm, /The US were using this back in the first Gulf War
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom