Jump to content

Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎{{KOR}}: South Korea Announces Expansion of Its Air Defense Zone
Liang1a (talk | contribs)
87 edits
Line 5: Line 5:
== History ==
== History ==
The first ADIZ was established by the United States in 1950 when it created a joint [[Air Defense Identification Zone (North America)|North American ADIZ]] with Canada, citing the legal right of a nation to establish reasonable conditions of entry into its territory. The U.S. does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace and does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter their national airspace.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9b8e92d-2c8d-4779-9925-0defea93325c/1-14M_%28Jul_2007%29_%28NWP|title= The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations|date= July 2007|publisher= Department of the Navy Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard|accessdate=30 November 2011}}</ref>
The first ADIZ was established by the United States in 1950 when it created a joint [[Air Defense Identification Zone (North America)|North American ADIZ]] with Canada, citing the legal right of a nation to establish reasonable conditions of entry into its territory. The U.S. does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace and does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter their national airspace.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9b8e92d-2c8d-4779-9925-0defea93325c/1-14M_%28Jul_2007%29_%28NWP|title= The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations|date= July 2007|publisher= Department of the Navy Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard|accessdate=30 November 2011}}</ref>

The above statement that US ADIZ rule does not require aircrafts not intending to enter US sovereign airspace to file flight plans while flying "through" US ADIZ is not correct. "ANY AIRCRAFT" is required to file flight plans before crossing into the US ADIZ whether it intends to enter US sovereign airspace or merely to fly through the ADIZ. Furthermore, all aircrafts flying in the US ADIZ without authorization will be treated as enemy aircrafts and subject to interception by fighters.<ref>http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf
</ref>

It makes no sense for a country to institute an ADIZ and then allow unknown aircrafts to fly within it without identifying themselves. It is especially nonsensical to say that US authorities will allow unknown aircrafts to enter and fly around the US ADIZ without identifying themselves when the whole point of an ADIZ is to set up a zone of '''IDENTIFICATION''' to identify unknown aircrafts. And how can an unknown aircraft become known without filing flight plans before entering the ADIZ. In other words, how can the US authorities know that an aircraft entering its ADIZ is intending to enter US sovereign airspace or merely flying through its ADIZ without intending to enter US sovereign airspace unless the aircraft had filed a flight plan before entering the American ADIZ. Also the US had declared that the ADIZ is to serve as a "national defense boundary for aerial incursions." Therefore, it is nonsense to argue that America does not apply its ADIZ rules to foreign aircrafts not intending to enter American sovereign airspace. The truth is the American ADIZ is precisely instituted to stop foreign aircrafts from entering American ADIZ without identifying themselves first. Otherwise, how can the ADIZ serve as a "national defense boundary for aerial incursions"? Do Americans think only domestic planes can attack the American homeland? Or putting it the other way, do Americans think foreign aircrafts will never attack American homeland? The truth, of course, is what I had explained that the US requires all aircrafts to identify themselves by filing flight plans before entering American ADIZ regardless of whether they intend to enter American sovereign airspace. If they didn't then American fighters will scrable and intercept them. In other words, foreign aircrafts don't need to file flight plans if they didn't intend to enter American airspace but they will nevertheless be intercepted by American fighters. Therefore, it is mendacious to say American ADIZ does not require filing flight plans for those aircrafts not intending to enter American sovereign airspace.



South Korea's ADIZ was established in 1951 during the [[Korean War]], also by the United States. It currently does not cover [[Socotra Rock]], known to Koreans as Ieodo. Korean Defence Minister [[Kim Kwan-jin]] said that Korea would consider extending its ADIZ in light of the extent of the Chinese ADIZ<ref>[http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131126000989 China’s aerial ambitions deepen territorial tensions] ''[[The Korea Herald]]'' 26 November 2013</ref> but an announcement of a change was postponed after a meeting with the United States ambassador.<ref name="JoongAng"/>
South Korea's ADIZ was established in 1951 during the [[Korean War]], also by the United States. It currently does not cover [[Socotra Rock]], known to Koreans as Ieodo. Korean Defence Minister [[Kim Kwan-jin]] said that Korea would consider extending its ADIZ in light of the extent of the Chinese ADIZ<ref>[http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131126000989 China’s aerial ambitions deepen territorial tensions] ''[[The Korea Herald]]'' 26 November 2013</ref> but an announcement of a change was postponed after a meeting with the United States ambassador.<ref name="JoongAng"/>

Revision as of 18:25, 8 December 2013

Chinese and Japanese Air Defense Identification Zones

The East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (abbreviated ADIZ) is an Air Defense Identification Zone covering most of the East China Sea where the People's Republic of China announced that it was introducing new air traffic restrictions in November 2013. The area consists of the airspace from about, and including, the Japanese administered Senkaku Islands (known as the Diaoyu Islands in mainland China) north to South Korean-claimed Socotra Rock (known as Suyan Jiao in China). About half of the area overlaps with a Japanese ADIZ, while also overlapping to a small extent with the South Korean and Taiwanese ADIZ. When introduced the Chinese initiative was controversial as requirements were imposed that other countries with air defense identification zones do not impose[1] and it included contested maritime areas.[2] Critics said the move escalated the Senkaku Islands territorial dispute between China and Japan.[3][4]

History

The first ADIZ was established by the United States in 1950 when it created a joint North American ADIZ with Canada, citing the legal right of a nation to establish reasonable conditions of entry into its territory. The U.S. does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace and does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter their national airspace.[5]

The above statement that US ADIZ rule does not require aircrafts not intending to enter US sovereign airspace to file flight plans while flying "through" US ADIZ is not correct. "ANY AIRCRAFT" is required to file flight plans before crossing into the US ADIZ whether it intends to enter US sovereign airspace or merely to fly through the ADIZ. Furthermore, all aircrafts flying in the US ADIZ without authorization will be treated as enemy aircrafts and subject to interception by fighters.[6]

It makes no sense for a country to institute an ADIZ and then allow unknown aircrafts to fly within it without identifying themselves. It is especially nonsensical to say that US authorities will allow unknown aircrafts to enter and fly around the US ADIZ without identifying themselves when the whole point of an ADIZ is to set up a zone of IDENTIFICATION to identify unknown aircrafts. And how can an unknown aircraft become known without filing flight plans before entering the ADIZ. In other words, how can the US authorities know that an aircraft entering its ADIZ is intending to enter US sovereign airspace or merely flying through its ADIZ without intending to enter US sovereign airspace unless the aircraft had filed a flight plan before entering the American ADIZ. Also the US had declared that the ADIZ is to serve as a "national defense boundary for aerial incursions." Therefore, it is nonsense to argue that America does not apply its ADIZ rules to foreign aircrafts not intending to enter American sovereign airspace. The truth is the American ADIZ is precisely instituted to stop foreign aircrafts from entering American ADIZ without identifying themselves first. Otherwise, how can the ADIZ serve as a "national defense boundary for aerial incursions"? Do Americans think only domestic planes can attack the American homeland? Or putting it the other way, do Americans think foreign aircrafts will never attack American homeland? The truth, of course, is what I had explained that the US requires all aircrafts to identify themselves by filing flight plans before entering American ADIZ regardless of whether they intend to enter American sovereign airspace. If they didn't then American fighters will scrable and intercept them. In other words, foreign aircrafts don't need to file flight plans if they didn't intend to enter American airspace but they will nevertheless be intercepted by American fighters. Therefore, it is mendacious to say American ADIZ does not require filing flight plans for those aircrafts not intending to enter American sovereign airspace.


South Korea's ADIZ was established in 1951 during the Korean War, also by the United States. It currently does not cover Socotra Rock, known to Koreans as Ieodo. Korean Defence Minister Kim Kwan-jin said that Korea would consider extending its ADIZ in light of the extent of the Chinese ADIZ[7] but an announcement of a change was postponed after a meeting with the United States ambassador.[8]

Japan's ADIZ was created by the U.S. during its post-World War II occupation of Japan. Management of the ADIZ was transferred in Japan in 1969. The Japanese ADIZ is not recognized by China or Russia.[9] Japan unilaterally expanded its ADIZ twice after the US transfer, once in 1972 and once in 2010.[10] On June 25, 2010 Japan extended its ADIZ 26 km west to cover a Japanese island called Yonaguni Island, the island having been intersected by the Taiwan/Japan ADIZ lines originally drawn by the U.S.[11] The government of the Taiwan expressed its "extreme regret" over Japan's handling of the move.[12]

The People's Republic of China announced the establishment of what it called its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone on November 23, 2013[13] defining an ADIZ as a zone that allowed a coastal state to "identify, monitor, control and react to aircraft entering this zone with potential air threats."[14] Despite several international protests, China's move received broad domestic support.[15]

According to a 2011 study of the justifications for establishing an ADIZ, at that time there had not yet been a "recorded instance of protest" against the initial establishment of an ADIZ.[16]

Administration and Monitoring Operations

Identification Rules

According to the Chinese Ministry of National Defense, foreign aircraft in the zone will be expected to abide by the following:[17]

  • Radio identification. Aircraft in the zone must maintain two-way radio communication and respond in a timely and accurate manner to inquiries
  • Sign identification. Any aircraft in the zone must display insignia indicating its nationality and registration clearly, in accordance with international treaties
  • Aircraft in the zone should follow instructions. The Chinese military will adopt "emergency defensive measures" in response to aircraft that refuse to follow the instructions.

China announced that the rules were in effect from 10 am on 23 November 2013 Beijing time.

On November 26 the state-controlled People's Daily said that while "freedom of flight" would be respected for "normal" flights, the principle would not apply to "provocative flyover and surveillance activities."[18] On November 29 a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman replied to the question, "You referred many times to ADIZs established by other countries, but there is a difference. For example, an aircraft which is passing through the US ADIZ without entering the sovereign US airspace does not have to notify US authorities," by stating that "different countries have set different rules."[19]

It is actually not factually correct to say that "an aircraft which is passing through the US ADIZ without entering the sovereign US airspace does not have to notify US authorities". The fact is US ADIZ rules require: "ANY AIRCRAFT that wishes to fly IN OR THROUGH the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan BEFORE CROSSING THE ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11)."

The truth is China's ADIZ rules are largely consistent with the US rules. In addition to requiring "any aircraft" to file flight plans when flying through the US ADIZ, US ADIZ rules also require the following:

"While approaching and crossing the North American ADIZ, aircraft must have an operational radar transponder and maintain two-way radio contact. (see 14 CFR 99.9 & 99.13)"

"Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft."

Therefore, US treats any aircraft without authorization as threats which may be intercepted by fighters. Therefore, if Chinese fighters intercepted unauthorized aircraft it is not being "unusual". [20]

International Reaction

 People's Republic of China

The state-run Xinhua News commented that the United States was among the first to set up an air defense zone in 1950, and later more than 20 countries, including Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam[21] have followed suit, which "Washington has taken for granted" and that "as soon as China started to do it, Washington immediately voiced concerns", adding that "they can do it while China can not, which could be described with a Chinese saying, 'the magistrates are free to burn down houses while the common people are forbidden even to light lamps.'" [22] The PRC state-run Global Times referenced the U.S. "deliberately ignor[ing] the existence of the new ADIZ" to say that while some in China had expressed the fear that "the US seems to have gained the upper hand with its action," one should understand that the American defiance is just part of "the psychological battles waged by Washington and Tokyo."[23]

In response to Japan's China ADIZ accusation of "one-sided action" and its demand of China to scrap its new ADIZ [24][25] China's Defence Ministry questioned Japan's justification, double-standards[26][27] and credibility by stating that Japan, having its own ADIZ established 44 years ago in 1969 and unilaterally extended it twice [28][29] and "one-sidedly allowed the zone to cover China's Diaoyu Islands",[26] has "no right" to ask China to withdraw its ADIZ, adding that China would like to ask Japan to "revoke its own ADIZ first, China will then consider this request in 44 years.”[30]

China also accused the European Union of double standards in response to the comments of its top diplomat.[31]

A Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman said there were "misunderstandings or even distortions" about the operation of the ADIZ and insisted that it was not a no-fly zone and "will not affect the freedom of overflight, based on international laws, of other countries' aircraft" adding that its purpose was "to set aside enough time for early warning to defend the country's airspace, with defense acting as the key point. The zone does not aim at any specific country or target".[32]

 Japan

The weeks prior to the ADIZ announcement, Japanese media complained that as part of their mandatory Marxism training,[33] Chinese journalists had been ordered to not make any concessionary comments regarding China's territorial claims.[34]

Promptly after the announcement, Japan Air Self-Defense Force sent two F-15 fighter jets to intercept two Chinese aircraft entering the air zone nearby the Senkaku Islands, which is included in the newly-announced Chinese ADIZ.[35]

On November 25, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the measures one-sidedly imposed rules set by the Chinese military on all flights in the zone, and violate the freedom to fly above open sea, a general principle under the international law, "the measures by the Chinese side have no validity whatsoever on Japan, and we demand China revoke any measures that could infringe upon the freedom of flight in international airspace. It can invite an unexpected occurrence and it is a very dangerous thing as well." He denounced China’s declaration as a dangerous attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea through coercion, vowed to protect Japan’s air and sea space, and demanded that Beijing “revoke any measures that could infringe upon the freedom of flight in international airspace.” [36]

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida stated that Japan would coordinate closely with the United States, the ROK, and others on demanding a revocation of the ADIZ measures,[37] while describing China as "engaging in profoundly dangerous acts that unilaterally change the status quo.”[38] Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera said that "it's important for both sides to take a calm approach and deal with the situation according to international norms."[39] He also denied Beijing’s claim that it scrambled fighter jets in response to Self-Defense Forces aircraft that had entered China’s new air defense identification zone, saying "there have been no abnormal situations, such as (Chinese) aircraft suddenly approaching (SDF planes in the ADIZ), as announced by China yesterday.” A Japanese official described the Chinese report is a "sheer fabricated story”.[40]

A Chinese spokeswoman said that Japan had put "the security of its citizens at stake [by] asking Japanese airlines not to report flight information to Chinese authorities as required."[41] Tokyo claimed that Beijing was, in fact, the party threatening passenger safety and brought the matter to the International Civil Aviation Organization on December 1.[42]

 South Korea

South Korea summoned a Chinese diplomat on November 25 to protest the creation of the zone, which includes Korean-claimed Socotra Rock where Korea has built structures.[43] Sources said that Seoul was informed in advance of Chinese plans, however, as Chinese officials stated that with respect to South Korea, "the two sides will solve the issue through friendly consultations and negotiations".[44] South Korea's Ministry of Transport said its airlines would not recognize the Chinese ADIZ. [45] The Koreans said they had launched a joint air and sea military exercise on December 3 to show their "intention to protect our jurisdiction over Ieodo’s waters.”[8] South Korea then extended their own ADIZ over the disputed waters.[46]

 Taiwan

Although the ADIZ announced by Beijing overlaps by a relatively small 23 000 square kilometers with the identification zone of the Republic of China (Taiwan),[47][48] official reaction from Taipei was initially muted, leading to protests from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and some academics that Ma Ying-jeou's government was failing to assert Taiwan's sovereignty.[49][50] On November 29 caucus leaders of both the DPP and ruling KMT party signed a joint statement calling on President Ma's administration to lodge a “stern protest” with Beijing.[51] On December 1, the 70th anniversary of the Cairo Declaration, Ma reasserted Taiwan's claim to the Diaoyutai islands and called on affected governments to peacefully negotiate and pursue the "East China Sea Peace Initiative" he had proposed the previous year.[52]

 United States

The U.S. said it would ignore the Chinese ADIZ and disregard Chinese orders, although the Obama administration differed from Japan and South Korea in deciding to advise American commercial airlines to comply with China’s demands out of fear of an unintended confrontation.[53] A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman complimented the U.S. decision on airlines saying "The submission of flight plans to the competent Chinese authorities by airlines of relevant countries including the US shows their constructive attitude and cooperative will..."[54] The Wall Street Journal on December 1 reported that "the U.S. carriers are filing flight plans with both Japan and China. At the same time, affected routes are being modified to avoid disputed airspace as much as practicable."[55]

A U.S. State Department statement called China's establishment of the zone a "unilateral action [that] constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea," adding that "Freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability, and security in the Pacific. We don't support efforts by any State to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter its national airspace. The United States does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. national airspace. We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing."[56]

United States defense secretary Chuck Hagel declared that the Chinese announcement “will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.” He also reiterated the official stance that the US would support Japan in the event of a war with China over the Senkaku islands. [57]

The United States sent two B-52 bombers from Guam to fly through the zone on November 26.[58] Although a Pentagon spokesperson claimed that "the planes had not been observed or contacted by Chinese aircraft",[59] the Chinese government claimed to have monitored the U.S. flight,[60] saying that while it took no other action in this case,[4] it "has the capability to exercise effective control over the relevant airspace."[61][62] The Chinese Defense Ministry also said that with respect to enforcing the zone, its military would take "corresponding action in accordance with the situation and the level of threat".[63]

On November 29, 2013, the U.S. Department of State issued a statement titled "China's Declared ADIZ - Guidance for U.S. Air Carriers" that the U.S. government generally expects that U.S. carriers operating internationally will operate consistent with NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) issued by foreign countries but also stressed that this does not mean U.S. government acceptance of China's ADIZ requirements.[64]

On December 4, 2013, American vice president Joe Biden discussed the issue at length with Chinese president Xi Jinping.[65]

 Australia

Australia summoned the Chinese ambassador in Australia to protest[66] and the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs issued the following remarks:

The timing and the manner of China's announcement are unhelpful in light of current regional tensions, and will not contribute to regional stability. Australia has made clear its opposition to any coercive or unilateral actions to change the status quo in the East China Sea.

— The Honourable Julie Bishop MP, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs[67]

Chinese Foreign Ministry said China cannot accept "the Australian side's irresponsible remarks" and urged Australia "to correct its mistake immediately to prevent damaging Sino-Australia relations."[68] In response, Bishop said that she has, "already expressed our concerns publicly and privately" and that she expected the issue to be "a topic of discussion in my upcoming visit to Beijing."[68]

 Philippines

The Philippines accused China of trying to transform the area into its "domestic airspace."[69] Filipino aviation official John Andrews warned that China might attempt to establish another ADIZ in the South China Sea, where the two nations have competing claims.[70]

 Germany

Germany said the creation of the zone "raised the risk of an armed incident between China and Japan."[71]

 France

France expressed concerns on the Chinese declaration and called for the parties to stay calm.[72]

 India

India called for peaceful resolution of the dispute via dialogue between the concerned parties, asserting that it does not support the use of threats or force, but has also refused to take sides on the issue. The new zone is likely to adversely impact Air India flights to Japan.[73]

 European Union

The European Union's top diplomat, Catherine Ashton, said "[t]his development heightens the risk of escalation and contributes to raising tensions in the region."[74]

Others

Some Asian airlines and authorities said they would inform China before their airliners entered the contested zone, but would not alter their flight paths or schedules.[75]

Robert E. Kelly, a scholar of East Asian international relations at Pusan National University, suggests that the Communist Party was hoping to boost its own internal legitimacy by appearing to challenge Japan, “the CCP may not want a conflict with Japan, but it’s been telling Chinese youth for more than 20 years that Japan is greatly responsible for the 100 years of humiliation. Now the CCP have to be tough on Japan even if they don’t want to be, because their citizens demand it.” “I always found that factoid that the PRC spends more on internal than external security to be indicative that CCP is very insecure at the top. It’s gotta have an ideology with foreign enemies, otherwise the Chinese people might see the real enemy: the CCP’s corruption, rejection of democracy and unwillingness to admit the horrors of Maoism.”[76]

Analyst Brahma Chellaney said the Chinese move represented what PRC Major General Zhang Zhaozhong called a "cabbage strategy," which involved asserting a claim, launching furtive incursions into the claimed area, and erecting multiple "cabbage-style" layers of security around the contested area to deny rivals access. In Chellaney's view the incursions in turn follow a "salami slicing" strategy whereby each "slice" is thin enough to preclude a dramatic reaction that could become a casus belli on its own, thus casting the burden of starting a war on the encroached upon party.[77]

See also

References

  1. ^ Rick Gladstone and Matthew L. Wald (27 November 2013), China’s Move Puts Airspace in Spotlight The New York Times
  2. ^ James Fallows (27 November 2013), (More on This Strange Chinese ADIZ: 'Sovereign Is as Sovereign Does' The Atlantic
  3. ^ "Two Japanese airlines to disregard China air zone rules". British Broadcasting Corporation. 26 November 2013. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
  4. ^ a b Jane Perlez (27 November 2013), China Explains Handling of B-52 Flight as Tensions Escalate The New York Times
  5. ^ "The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations". Department of the Navy Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard. July 2007. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  6. ^ http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf
  7. ^ China’s aerial ambitions deepen territorial tensions The Korea Herald 26 November 2013
  8. ^ a b Jeong Yong-Soo and Sarah Kim, Korean Navy conducts drill close to Ieodo Korea JoongAng Daily 4 December 2013
  9. ^ "Background: Air Defense Identification Zones". China Network Television. 24 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ "Japan's ADIZ is 130 KM away from Zhejiang at Its Closest Point, Covering Chunxiao Oilfield" (in Chinese). East Day. 2013-11-27. Retrieved 2013-11-27.
  11. ^ "防衛省、防空識別圏を拡大　与那国上空のみ西方２６キロ". The Ryukyu Shimpo. June 25, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ "Japan extends ADIZ into Taiwan space". taipeitimes.com. Taipei Times. 26 June 2013. Retrieved 24 November 2013.
  13. ^ "Statement by the Government of the People's Republic of China on Establishing the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone". http://news.xinhuanet.com/. Xinhua. 23 November 2013. Retrieved 23 November 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  14. ^ Defense Spokesman Yang Yujun’s Response to Questions on the Establishment of The East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China 23 November 2013
  15. ^ "Chinese public offers broad support to ADIZ". http://www.scmp.com/. South China Morning Post. 29 November 2013. Retrieved 29 November 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  16. ^ Abeyratne, Ruwantissa. "In search of theoretical justification for air defence identification zones" (PDF). International Foundation For Aviation And Development. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
  17. ^ "Announcement of the Aircraft Identification Rules for the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone of the P.R.C." Beijing, China: Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China. November 23, 2013. Retrieved November 25, 2013.
  18. ^ Air defense ID zone to deter those with designs on China's territory People's Daily 26 November 2013
  19. ^ Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang's Regular Press Conference Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China 29 November 2013
  20. ^ http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf
  21. ^ "Commentary: 防空识别区 (fang kong shi bie qu)". http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/. ChinaDaily. 29 November 2013. Retrieved 29 November 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  22. ^ "Commentary: U.S, Japan wrong to blame China for air zone date=26 November 2013". http://news.xinhuanet.com. Xinhua. Retrieved 26 November 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing pipe in: |title= (help)
  23. ^ B-52’s defiance no reason for nervousness Global Times 28 November 2013
  24. ^ "Abe urges China to withdraw air zone plan". Japan Times. November 25, 2013. {{cite web}}: Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  25. ^ "Japan warns of 'unpredictable events' over China's new ADIZ over Senkakus". Japan Times. November 25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  26. ^ a b "Commentary: U.S, Japan's logic on air zone ridiculous". {{cite web}}: Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  27. ^ "China's ADIZ is justified". {{cite web}}: Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  28. ^ "The A to Z on China's Air Defense Identification Zone". {{cite web}}: Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  29. ^ "Background: Air Defense Identification Zones". Xinhua. Retrieved 24 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  30. ^ "China tells Japan it would 'consider cancelling air zone in 44 years'". {{cite web}}: Text "cite news" ignored (help)
  31. ^ "U.S. airlines give China flight plans for new defense zone". http://news.yahoo.com/. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 30 November 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  32. ^ "Defense Ministry spokesman on China's air defense identification zone". http://news.xinhuanet.com/. 3 December 2013. Retrieved 3 December 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  33. ^ Zhang Zhilong Marxist training for reporters Global Times 2 September 2013
  34. ^ All Chinese journalists ordered to censor supportive stances toward Japan Kyodo News 20 October 2013
  35. ^ "中国機の東シナ海における飛行について" (PDF). Japan Ministry of Defense. Retrieved 3 December 2013.Template:Ja icon
  36. ^ Japan's PM demands China revoke claim to air zone over disputed islands, The Guardian
  37. ^ China's Air Defense Identification Zone: Impact on Regional Security
  38. ^ U.S. to Continue Flights in Defense Zone Claimed by China
  39. ^ East China Sea tensions prompt caution from U.S. airlines
  40. ^ No Chinese jets scrambled: Japan
  41. ^ Japan must see air zone is about safety: experts China Daily 30 November 2013
  42. ^ Nicolaysen, Lars (1 December 2013). "Japan calls for action of China air zone". theaustralian.com.au. AAP. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
  43. ^ China Hit with Complaints Over Maritime Air Defense Zone Voice of America 25 November 2013
  44. ^ China informed Seoul of air defense zone The Korea Herald 25 November 2013
  45. ^ "Seoul considers southward expansion of air defense zone". The Korea Herald. Retrieved 01 December 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  46. ^ SANG-HUN, CHOE (8 December 2013). "South Korea Announces Expansion of Its Air Defense Zone". www.nytimes.com. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 8 December 2013.
  47. ^ Taiwan's military on top of regional developments: MND Channel NewsAsia:Focus Taiwan 27 November 2013
  48. ^ Air Force officials pinpoint ADIZ overlap with China 'Channel NewsAsia:Focus Taiwan 27 November 2013
  49. ^ Shih Hsiu-chuan (28 November 2013), ADIZ response a sign of surrender: academic Taipei Times
  50. ^ Air defense zone in line with cross-Strait interests: Spokeswoman Xinhua 27 November 2013
  51. ^ Taiwan lawmakers denounce China air defense zone Associated Press 29 November 2013
  52. ^ "Taiwan wades into East China Sea air defence zone debate". Japan Times. December 1. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  53. ^ Peter Baker and Jane Perlez (29 November 2013), U.S. Advises Commercial Jets to Honor China’s Rules New York Times
  54. ^ Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Regular Press Conference Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China]] 2 December 2013
  55. ^ Japan, U.S. at Odds Over China's Air Zone
  56. ^ Statement on the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone U.S. State Department 23 November 2013
  57. ^ Chan, John (26 November 2013). "Heightened tensions over China's air defence zone". www.wsws.org. ICFI. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
  58. ^ Freedberg Jr., Sydney J. (26 November 2013). "US Tests New China Air Defense Zone With B-52s; PRC Move Drives Korea, Japan Together". breakingdefense.com. Breaking Media, Inc. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
  59. ^ Felsenthal, Mark (Nov 27, 2013). "U.S. affirms support for Japan in islands dispute with China". Reuters.
  60. ^ "Defense Ministry Speaker Col. Geng Yansheng Answers Reporters' Questions Regarding US Military Aircraft Entering China's East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone" (in Chinese). Defense Ministry of People's Republic of China. 2013-11-27. Retrieved 2013-11-27. 美军飞机于北京时间２６日１１时至１３时２２分沿我东海防空识别区东部边缘南北方向往返飞行，位钓鱼岛以东约２００公里活动。中国军队进行了全程监视、及时识别，判明了美方飞机类别。
  61. ^ China says U.S. bombers flew over its defence zone Associated Press 27 November 2013
  62. ^ China monitors U.S. bombers in defense zone Xinhua News Agency 27 November 2013
  63. ^ "Air zone said not to affect routine flights date=27 November 2013". chinadaily.com.cn. China Daily. Retrieved 27 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Missing pipe in: |title= (help)
  64. ^ "China's Declared ADIZ - Guidance for U.S. Air Carriers". http://www.state.gov/. 29 November 2013. Retrieved 29 November 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  65. ^ LEDERMAN, JOSH (4 December 2013). "US-China: Talks but no consensus on air zone row". ap.org. AP. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
  66. ^ "US defies China's fly zone with B-52 flight". Agence France-Presse. 27 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  67. ^ Bishop, Julie. "China's announcement of an air-defence identification zone over the East China Sea". Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
  68. ^ a b Scott Murdoch (27 November 2013),China fires back at Julie Bishop over 'irresponsible remarks' The Australian
  69. ^ Philippines says China’s air defense zone a threat Associated Press
  70. ^ "Philippines Says China's Air Defense Zone a Threat". abcnews.go.com. AP. 28 November 2013. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  71. ^ Chow Chung-yan (27 November 2013), Air defence zone in East China Sea to remain 'forever', say Beijing advisers South China Morning Post
  72. ^ 東海防空識別區 法籲各方克制Template:Zh icon
  73. ^ "India for peaceful resolution of Chinese air defence zone row". The Economic Times. 5 December 2013. Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  74. ^ China scrambles jets to new defence zone, eyes U.S., Japan flights Reuters 29 November 2013
  75. ^ Blanchard, Ben; Kelly, Tim (25 November 2013). "Asian airlines to give flight plans to China after airspace zone created". reuters.com. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 25 November 2013.
  76. ^ Does China ADIZ take focus off ‘real enemy’?
  77. ^ Irredentist China Ups The Ante Forbes 2 December 2013
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Defense_Identification_Zone_(East_China_Sea)&oldid=585157190"