ROK Drop

By on July 15th, 2010 at 9:38 pm

US Modifies Naval Drill After Chinese Objections

» by in: China

Here is yet another victory for the Chinese fresh off their success on having a watered down UN resolution assigning no blame on the North Koreans for the sinking of the Cheonan:

South Korea and the United States will push ahead with a joint naval exercise to warn North Korea against making attacks on the South, officials in Seoul and Washington said.

But a defense ministry official told the JoongAng Ilbo that the two countries have arrived at a compromise to avoid angering China, which objected to the exercise being held in the Yellow Sea near its own territorial waters.

“We will hold drills in both the Yellow Sea and the East Sea,” the official said.

In addition, the U.S.S. George Washington, a U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, will participate in the exercise in the East Sea, not the Yellow Sea, the source said.

“The first stage of the drill will take place in the East Sea with the aircraft carrier, and more exercises will follow in the Yellow Sea,” he said. “The aircraft carrier cannot participate in all drills. Last year, it joined the drill in the Yellow Sea. This year, it will participate in the exercise in the East Sea.”

The official admitted that China’s objection to the drill was a factor in changing the plan.  [Joong Ang Ilbo]

Tags: , , ,
- 207 views
7
  • someotherguy
    3:17 pm on July 15th, 2010 1

    Hmmm I don't see that as much of a victory. The exercise's are still taking place no? The purpose of the exercises is to demonstrate that the US / ROK alliance can repel an attack and exercise regime removal as the goal. That will still be done, the exact location of the USS George Washington doesn't matter as long as its in the KTO and involved. Or do you support most useless posturing? The mission will be accomplished, that is all that matters.

    Lately your posts have been getting more and more subjective rather then their typical objective "report the news not interpret the news" stance they used to be.

  • GI Korea
    11:50 pm on July 15th, 2010 2

    It is pretty clear this is a victory for the Chinese. They complained, we blinked and changed the exercise.

    It was pretty obvious the Chinese would complain, so why make a big announcement about the carrier being based in the Yellow Sea for the exercise if their is no will power on the US side to follow through with the plan?

    The carrier should have just been based out of the East Sea in the first place instead of giving the Chinese government the appearance of being able to tell the US what it can and cannot do with its military exercises.

  • Tom
    12:21 am on July 16th, 2010 3

    The days of US influence in Asia is numbered.

    Good bye.

    America's bankers are demanding the weak bankrupted US to play by the new banker's rules. Doesn't this situation prove what I'm saying is correct?

  • simon
    6:47 am on July 16th, 2010 4

    tom .. if you had a brain you would be dangerous, but since most Korean brains are little used, and available on the after-market as "unused", you're safe

  • ASBM
    4:02 pm on July 16th, 2010 5

    Hey Guys,

    Take this usual from now on. Both China and the US are WINNERS. Think!

  • Tweets that mention US Modifies Naval Drill After Chinese Objections | ROK Drop -- Topsy.com
    12:31 pm on July 17th, 2010 6

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GIKorea, blogs of the world. blogs of the world said: Here is yet another victory for the Chinese fresh off their success on having a watered do… http://reduce.li/bsheor #objections [...]

  • someotherguy
    10:20 am on July 18th, 2010 7

    The aircraft battle carrier group was announced as a political statement. It has no functional use being there, there is no real reason to put it there other then to say we can. We did that, forced the Chinese to speak up about it then go about our business. There will be no real difference, we will never if maybe it was planned that way all along. A victory requires an objective obtained, and the implied "loss" requires an objective not obtained. You know none of the required details to effectively ascertain the objectives of either side. How could you even remotely guess what is victory / loss or even compromise without that knowledge. Ohh yeah … its the internetz…

    Or is there some macho ego thing going on here, cause its sounding more and more that way?

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 15470 access attempts in the last 7 days.