11-24 123 19385 胸自潮
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:胸自潮 转载请注明出处

Show Of Force In South China Sea Won't Earn Canada 'Respect'


Canadian leaders' search for "gravitas" and "respect" from their U.S. counterparts is adding to friction in the Asia-Pacific. Amidst tension on the Korean Peninsula, the Canadian Navy has joined Washington's pivot towards Asia.


Recently departed, HMCS Chicoutimi is expected to be in the Asia-Pacific until March. While they did not offer CBC News much detail, a military spokesperson said the first-ever Victoria-class submarine deployed to the region will "provide the government with defence and security options should a timely Canadian response be necessary."


Chicoutimi's deployment follows on the heels of a six-month tour of Asia by HMCS Ottawa and Winnipeg, which included "freedom of navigation" operations and exercises alongside U.S., Japanese, Australian and other countries' warships. When the two Canadian gunboats travelled through the South China Sea with their allies, Chinese vessels came within three nautical miles and "shadowed" them for 36 hours. On another occasion a Chinese intelligence vessel monitored HMCS Winnipeg and Ottawa while they exercised with a South Korean ship.


After visiting HMCS Ottawa and Winnipeg in Singapore Chief of Defence Staff Jon Vance declared, "if one wants to have any respect or gravitas you have to be in that region."


The Canadian Navy has supported Washington's aggressive posture.


During the past decade the U.S. and its principle Asian economic ally Japan have lost their economic hegemony over the region. With Chinese power growing and the Obama administration's pivot designed to contain it, Washington has sought to stoke longstanding territorial and maritime boundary disputes in the South China Sea between China and the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and other nations. As part of efforts to rally regional opposition to China, the U.S. Navy engages in regular "freedom of navigation" operations, which see warships travel through or near disputed waters — kind of like the logic employed by street gangs defending "their" territory.


The Canadian Navy has supported Washington's aggressive posture. They've increased participation in patrols and exercises in the region. In 2012 it came to light the military was seeking a small base or "hub" in southeast Asia — probably in Singapore — with a port facility.


Unfortunately, exerting naval power in the region is nothing new for this country. For two decades the Canadian navy has made regular port visits to Asia. Since its 1971 inception, Canada has participated in every Rim of the Pacific Exercise, which is a massive U.S.-led maritime warfare training every two years.


Immediately after U.S. forces invaded Korea in 1950, Ottawa sent three gunboats to the region. Ultimately, eight Canadian warships with 3,600 soldiers were deployed to the country during the conflict (a total of 27,000 Canadians fought in the three-year war that left millions dead). Canadian ships transported troops and bombed the North.


According to a Canadian War Museum exhibit, "During the war, Canadians became especially good at "train busting." This meant running in close to shore, usually at night, and risking damage from Chinese and North Korean artillery in order to destroy trains or tunnels on Korea's coastal railway. Of the 28 trains destroyed by United Nations warships in Korea, Canadian vessels claimed eight.


Like the smaller, weaker kid in a street gang, our "leaders" are trying to prove how tough we are.


Before the outbreak of the Korean War, the Canadian Navy sought to exert itself in the region. In a bizarre move, Ottawa sent a naval vessel to China in 1949 as the Communists were on the verge of victory. According to Canadian GunboatDiplomacy, the boat was sent too late to stop the Kuomintang's defeat by Mao's forces and was not needed to evacuate Canadians since British boats could remove them. The objective, it seems, was to demonstrate to the U.S. and U.K. "that Canada was a willing partner," particularly in light of the emerging north Atlantic alliance.


And like the smaller, weaker kid in a street gang, our "leaders" are trying to prove how tough we are. Need someone to attack a house? Sure, we'll do it. Show them our firepower? We're in.


Canadian military planners' search for "gravitas" is akin to gang logic. Let's hope our behaviour in Asia doesn't lead to where gang warfare has taken some North American cities.


原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:胸自潮 转载请注明出处

Wish they would send the armada to New England. We'd love to see the ships and all the restaurants would be happy. If given some notice we'd arrange parades and concerts. P town has a nice deep harbor for the a few or the larger ships and what kid wouldn't love to see a sub without traveling all the way to RI. Especially a Canadian one. I know all the pipe bands in the area would want to welcome them ashore. The first time I ever got to touch a helicopter was when a Canadian Ice breaker came to Boston in the 50's. I couldn't believe it.


Catherine ValeLeader3 Nov
What a crock. We are not trying to gain favour with the US bully here. The bully is China. Why not a word about that?


Elizabeth PalLeader3 Nov
America says - jump . We ask - how high ?


Philip SheldrakeLeader2 Nov
Show Of Farce you mean.


Mike SchapanskyLeader31 Oct
No it won't but rather exert your energy on telling China not to build fake islands in order to 'militarize' the south China sea so Canada won't send their crap navy in the first place. Canada already lost respect on the world stage, no point in worsening it.


Ralph GorleyLeader31 Oct
Avast, mateys! Shake out more canvas and get our fleet to the Far East. Sharpen those cutlasses and check the flints on the gunlocks.


Philip SheldrakeLeaderRalph Gorley2 Nov
Over estimating our resources aren't you.


Steve BowierLeader31 Oct
Rest assured Yves, you will not be called upon for active duty because of your heel spur. Go away coward. Either we're with our allies or we're not.


Dave ConstableLeader31 Oct
Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam Have claims in the South China Sea. Seems to me Japan does too.
USA and its posse claims they are protecting freedom of navigation, so having us in the mix keeps the nations in the region from working things out.
Interesting that we should chip in with USA on this, because if USA gets its way in the South China Sea, you can bet your Canadian dollars they will be eager to continue applying the precedent in our Northwest passage.



Monty BurnsLeader31 Oct
First, we need a ship that is seaworthy.

Our military needs funding. How about stopping. Giving billions overseas, and build a proper navy?



NORD STURMLeaderMonty Burns31 Oct
We have seaworthy ships. What we don't have currently is enough personnel and funding.
If a military matching our GDP was in order and meant votes we would be second to none for our size. Instead we trail in the distance with Liberals BSing the population and promising social stuff that never happens.


Mike SchapanskyLeaderNORD STURM31 Oct
So far. Submarines aren't sea worthy and never will be. No destroyers with actual military capable...wait, we got rid of our destroyers..nevermind. Frigates are 50 years old. Pea shooters won't stop a whale. Halifax shipyards supposedly building navy ships....won't be done in 50 years if ever. By then, technology will be by passed by Canadian ineptitude.


Paul GrahamLeaderMonty Burns3 NovEdited
For what purpose? With every last cent and every last life, Canada could no more invade or correct China than you could be eaten by a Blue Crab. Why go that route ? Armadas are a thing of the past. Spain built a proper one at one time though. Very impressive, like the Bismark. Canada should invest in high tech engineering encouraging research not spending on building a war machine.


Micheal KirkhamInfluencer31 Oct
Clearly the author has no idea of the ridiculousness of China's territorial claims in the South China Sea and it's wanton bullying of it's weaker neighbours in the region. It's important for the international community to stand up so that this is not perceived as simply a U.S./China spat. Applying the same Chinese logic in the Canadian context would have us claiming a third of the North Atlantic. Ridiculous.


Vince SnettertonLeaderMicheal Kirkham31 Oct
You are quite correct about the Chinese territorial claims. My main issue with sending any of our assets there is that it so trivial. One sub, or a sub and destroyer, are nothing when compared to the firepower the Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, and the U.S. have floating around there. If a shooting war actually broke out, Canada would be ordered to gets it assets out there, because they are more likely to be accidentally identified as an enemy target than actually do some good.
Canada has to get serious about our Navy. We are a sea-faring nation, with more coastline that anyone else. We need a dozen excellent surface combatants (the Danish frigate is a good model) capable of anti-air and anti-sub warfare. Anti-ship warfare is not as important. We also need a massive upgrade in our sub fleet. Think about 8 patrol subs along the likes of the German 212's for patrolling the Atlantic and Pacific, and 6 nuclear attack subs purposed to protect our Arctic Ocean interests. Remember, for every 3 naval vessels, usually only one is available for duty. The others are in repair/upgrade/training.
But a commitment like that is enormous. No government we have had, have today, or will have tomorrow, will do it. And by the time the americans and chinese decide our water territory belongs to them, it will be too late to build that navy.


首页 > 网帖翻译 > 美国
讨论 123


游客 您尚未登录
龙腾网提示: 关闭