維基解密：中國政府船機對美艦展現敵意
【Comment】
The Washington Times cited a Wikileaks cable that PLA Navy blinded USNS Victorious crew with a high-density, narrow-beam white light for half an hour on March 8, 2008. Besides the concurrent fly-over of PLA aircrafts for over 75 times, it revealed PLA’s hostility toward the US and Japan. The report also said that someone on Russian merchant ship did something similar to the US aircraft carrier in 1997. As a government, Russia thus took no responsibility for civilian behavior. This time, it was PLA Navy vessel and soldiers that did this. It was definitely hostile.
No wonder, the Washington Times use the word “attack” in the report. revised at 1330
華盛頓時報，常常報導美國軍方消息，這次在眾多維基解密電文中找這條來報導，頗具權威性。
此報導的事件時間為2008年3月值得注意。當時，台灣正在選舉。
除強光事件本身值得注意之外，事件前後有高達75次的B-6（原文為 B-6 Bombers）與Y-12（應為運-12運輸機）戰機飛越，與8架B-6轟炸機，以及被其他軍艦尾隨，顯然為一種極具挑釁性的計劃行為。
1997年，是俄國商船上的個人做美航艦做過此等行為，國家無責。中國，卻是由政府公船與軍人為之。郵報使用 Attack 這字眼描述此事。
危險的事，解放軍對於美日已經具有明顯敵意，問題是還不敢或還不到撕破臉的時候。
原文：CHINA BLINDED U.S. CREW◎Washington Times (2011.09.07)
維基解密：中國強光干擾美艦半小時◎自由（2011.09.09）
〔編譯張沛元／綜合報導〕美國華盛頓時報七日引述維基解密最新公佈的美國外交密電，指稱中國一艘驅逐艦在二○○八年時，於公海上對一艘美軍偵查艦發射強力光束，藉此干擾美艦上官兵的視線。
根據這份由美國駐北京大使館拍發給當時美國國務卿萊絲的密電，發射強光干擾美艦的中國驅逐艦，是旅滬級首艦，編號DD112的「哈爾濱號」，受害的美艦則是美軍偵測船「勝利號」（USNS Victorious），事發地點是東海，時間為二○○八年三月八日。
損及視力 影響航行安全
這份被列為「機密」（secret）的外交電文指出，哈爾濱號對勝利號發射白色強力光束大約三十分鐘；這種強度的光束，損及勝利號上人員的視覺敏銳度，對該艦隊的航行構成危險。
美國國防部從未透露曾發生此事。目前並不清楚中方發射的強光是雷射還是強力探照燈。美國海軍與國防部都沒有對此發表評論。
外交密電中還說，勝利號當天除遭強光攻擊，還有八架中國B-6轟炸機在四小時期間飛近或飛越勝利號，其中部分時段與哈爾濱號光束攻擊時間重疊。美方評估，這些中國轟炸機的飛行目的在於訓練，而非針對勝利號的偵查任務；但美軍太平洋指揮部情報中心認為，不能完全排除中方在B-6轟炸機通過該區域時，把勝利號當作訓練對象。
美抗議無效 隔年仍被騷擾
該密電說，美國政府已向中方表達抗議，認為中方此舉「挑釁且不符中國依據海事法所應擔負的法律責任……中方對勝利號的行為構成嚴重騷擾，以及升高誤判危險。」此外，該密電指出，在強光事件之前，勝利號還被旅滬級或旅大級的中國戰艦尾隨，曾被飛越其上空的Y-12與B-6戰機騷擾七十五次。
中國騷擾美軍船艦事件首次曝光是在二○○九年，當年三月海測船「無瑕號」在南海國際水域遭到中國軍艦以及漁船包圍騷擾，美國國防部為此向北京提出正式抗議。
二○○八年的東海強光事件與發生於一九九七年美國華盛頓州的另一起光束攻擊事件類似。一艘俄羅斯商船當時發動雷射光攻擊，導致搭乘一架加拿大軍用直升機，在華盛頓州普捷灣璜迪福卡海峽上空進行鳥瞰偵查任務的美國海軍少校戴利的視力受損。
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2011/new/sep/9/today-int1.htm
CHINA BLINDED U.S. CREW◎Washington Times (2011.09.07)
A Chinese warship fired a high-powered beam of light that disrupted the vision of crew members aboard a U.S. Navy surveillance ship operating in international waters in 2008.
According to a newly released State Department cable, the apparent blinding attack on the USNS Victorious, an ocean survey ship, occurred in the East China Sea.
“On March 8, 2008, [Chinese] Luhu-class DD112 shined a high-intensity, narrow-beam white light at USNS Victorious for approximately 30 minutes,” the cable, labeled “secret,” said.
“The light was of such intensity that it temporarily impaired the visual acumen of USNS Victorious personnel and thereby constituted a hazard to navigation.”
The incident was outlined in a State Department cable made public Aug. 30. It was never disclosed by the Pentagon.
It could not be learned whether the light beam was a laser or high-powered searchlight. Navy and Pentagon spokesman had no immediate comment.
The East China Sea incident appears similar to a laser attack carried out in 1997 by someone aboard a Russian merchant ship. The attack damaged the eyes of Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly, who was conducting an aerial reconnaissance mission aboard a Canadian military helicopter over the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington state’s Puget Sound.
That incident also was kept secret until disclosed by The Washington Times.
The cable stated that during the 2008 blinding, eight B-6 bombers flew near or over the Victorious during a four-hour period that “partially overlapped the intense illumination of the Victorious by the Luhu-class DD112.”
The bomber flights were assessed to be training missions and not a reaction to the ship’s ocean survey. The U.S. Pacific Command’s intelligence center “could not completely rule out that the Chinese military used USNS Victorious as a training opportunity as the B-6 aircraft transited the area,” the cable said.
The cable, disclosed by the anti-secrecy portal WikiLeaks, was sent by then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in outlining a protest note on the incident.
The U.S. government complained that “China’s conduct as described above, … is provocative and inconsistent with China’s legal obligations under the law of the sea,” the cable said.
“China’s activities regarding USNS Victorious constitute serious harassment and elevate the risk of miscalculation.”
The cable said prior to the beam illumination of the ship, it was shadowed by Luhu- or Luda-class warships, Wagor oceanographic and patrol vessels. The Victorious was also buzzed by Chinese Y-12 and B-6 aircraft 75 times in low-altitude passes over the U.S. ship.
China’s harassment of U.S. Navy ships did not surface in public until a year later in 2009 when then-Director of National IntelligenceDennis C. Blair told a Senate hearing that Chinese ships had become aggressive in seeking to assert control over a 200-mile Economic Exclusion Zone that extends into international waters but is not recognized by the Navy in asserting freedom of navigation.
Chinese ships followed and harassed the USNS Impeccable in the South China Sea on March 9, 2009.
BEIJING’S PROLIFERATION
More than a dozen classified State Department cables made public Au. 30 reveal extensive and continuous Chinese arms and equipment transfers to Iran, Syria, North Korea and Pakistan, most of them in violation of U.N. sanctions or international arms control agreements.
The documents provide details on scores of Chinese companies that for more than a decade have been providing weapons of mass destruction goods and technology.
A May 5, 2003, cable, for example, discusses China’s supplying of glass-lined chemical processing technology used for Iran’s chemical weapons, and also “jet mill/micronnizers” that are used to make biological weapons.
A March 10, 2006, cable highlights China’s supplying several tons of stainless steel to North Korea’s main weapons trader and a “ring-rolling” machine to Pakistan for use in making missiles.
China also sold goods to Syria that were used to make rockets for Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. One cable said on July 6, 2007, South Korean officials intercepted a shipment of Chinese-origin steel on the way to Syria that “was to be used in the production of rockets for” Hezbollah.
In 2006, after repeated appeals to China to halt the arms proliferation, the Bush administration imposed sanctions on four Chinese companies. A short time later, the Bush White House issued yet another appeal to the Chinese to take steps to stop the illicit arms trade, mainly with Iran.
Then a June 28, 2006, cable said that, despite a Chinese promise to “take immediate action in response to any new proliferation activities by these firms,” one of the sanctioned companies, China National Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation, shipped additional goods to Iran’s missile maker.
A month later at a meeting on the numerous proliferation cases, Chinese officials insisted they found nothing wrong or were still investigating.
One of the cases involved Chinese national Gao Yiming, who was engaged in supplying Pakistan’s unsafeguarded nuclear program with an aluminum production line for uranium centrifuge parts.
A May 17, 2007, cable disclosed how the Chinese firm, Dalian Chlorate, shipped 400 tons of missile fuel chemical to Iran in violation of U.N. sanctions against the Iranian missile program.
By Aug. 8, 2008, the cables reveal growing U.S. frustration with continued Chinese proliferation, noting in the case of Dalian Sunny Industry that “since February 2006, we have repeatedly discussed with China our concerns regarding the proliferation-related trading activities” of the company for sales of composite materials used for missile frames.
Many of the cables outline talking points for U.S. officials to use in diplomatic exchanges with the Chinese that begin: “In the spirit of our cooperation on nonproliferation issues, we would like to alert you to. …” The numerous cables that outlined ongoing arms proliferation raise questions about that cooperation.
Said former State Department China specialist John Tkacik: “I don’t know how to say Groundhog Day in Chinese, but the Chinese have not done anything to scale back their nuclear, chemical and missile proliferation despite 22 years of State Department demarches.
“Unlike the movie, however, the State Department doesn’t seem to have learned anything from Beijing’s repeated stiff-arming, prevarications, evasions and outright lies. So Beijing just keeps on behaving as it always has,” he said.
A Pentagon official Wednesday confirmed the report in this column last week that it is conducting a probe into whether China will obtain valuable avionics technology for its military from the joint venture of General Electric Co. and the Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC).
“The Defense Technology Security Agency [DTSA] routinely meets with industry to receive information concerning the companies’ potential export of munitions and/or dual use items,” the official said.
The meeting with GE officials last week was “one of many meetings DTSA has with its industrial partners each year.”
A June 22, 2011, email from DTSA said GE had not applied for an export license related to the technology involved in the China venture and as a result the Defense Department “has not formally reviewed any technology associated with the [joint venture].”
The email said that in an earlier meeting with GE, “DTSA expressed reservations about the GE self-determination that the proposed technologies would not require a license,” noting that the Chinese companies involved have “a history of cooperation between civil and military sectors.”
“DTSA opined that there was the potential/possibility for China to exploit civil technologies for use in its own military modernization,” the DTSA email said.
GE spokesmen have said the venture will not involve military technology and that no Chinese military officials will be allowed to work on the project.
WOMEN IN COMBAT
Don’t look for Congress this year to debate legislation that would lift the ban on women in land combat units below the level of brigade.
The congressionally created Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended in January, in a split vote, to lift the ban that has been the law since 1994.
Congress had asked for a comprehensive report from the Pentagon on women in the military and their current roles. Women may now serve on combat aircraft and ships.
The report was supposed to be done last spring. But a House aide tells reporter Rowan Scarborough that the Pentagon requested an extension to October.
“Based on the extensive nature of the requested review and the desire to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review, the department will provide the report in October 2011,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez told Inside the Ring.
“The nature of today’s conflicts is evolving,” she said. “There are no front lines in Afghanistan. While women are not assigned to units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct combat on the ground, this doesn’t mean they are not assigned to positions in combat zones that could place them in danger.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/7/inside-the-ring-605847932/
