"I went to war because..." Yellow Team (Leshi, Frank, Shannon, Ryan J)

Philip Sheridan

Went to war because it was his best option coming from a modest upbringing, and it also allowed him to fight to secure the Union.

General John J. Pershing

Went to war because he attended West Point Academy for academic reasons, subsequently becoming the highest ranking General of his time. He led the American troops in World War 1.

General Lafayette

Went to war because he believed in the ideals of the American Revolution.

African American Civil War Memorial

They went to war in order to gain freedom and to become an integral part of society.

They Went to War Because....With Josh, Victoria, JR, and Tony.

Joan of Arc went to war to defend her country's sovereignty and identity.

The US is prepared to go to war to ensure security and further American interests.

William T. Sherman went to war to ensure the survival of the Union.

Jose Artigas went to war to gain independence for his country.

Is the “Two-State Solution” Really Viable?

The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been going on for several decades, creating instability in a region already wracked with violence. Pre-dating the state of Israel by several years, the conflict stems from existing tensions between the Zionist and Arabs living in the state of Palestine during British rule. Today, these tensions have broadened to encompass a conflict that has consumed the area, drawing Israelis and Palestinians alike into its gravitational pull. While the situation has multiple facets, some of the main points of dispute include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This fluid barrier between the two actors reveals not only a look into the causes behind the conflict but also a greater look into how this situation can be viewed through the lens of realism.

Beginning with the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, the region has been embroiled in both existing and new tensions. From as early as 638 AD, when Arab Muslims conquered the region 500 years after the Jews were exiled from the area, dysfunction has marked the Arab-Israeli relationship. The rise of Zionism in the 1940s did more to mar relations, culminating in the creation of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948, a day known to many Palestinians as “The Catastrophe.” Since that time, both sides have engaged in military combat almost without cessation.

The most influential of these military actions was the Six Day War in 1967, a conflict that would shape much of the contentions of the entire Middle East crisis. The hostilities began when Israel seized Gaza and the Sinai Province from Egypt in the south and pushed Jordanian forces out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This unprecedented expansion alienated Israel’s Arab neighbors and the international community, which was deeply divided over the validity of Israel’s action. It is estimated by the United Nations that over 500,000 Palestinians were displaced by the hostilities. Despite international pressure, Israel continued to occupy the West Bank and Gaza for several years, a situation that would lead to several more military conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors, as well as international condemnation.

In the 1970s, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Liberation Organization launched a series of attacks against Israeli forces that expressed the anger of many Palestinians who had suffered at the hands of the Israeli occupation. The PLO would continue to engage with the Israeli military for several decades, until the Oslo Accords in 1993. Under the newly elected leadership of the leftist Labor Government, Israel slowly began exploring reconciliation with the PLO. The PLO, in turn, was eager to negotiate due to the relative weakness of its position because of the Gulf War. The Palestinians agreed to recognize the Israeli state in exchange for the dismantling of the Israeli occupation, unprecedented progress that eventually culminated with the signing of the Declaration of Principles, a high point in Israeli-Palestinian relations that unfortunately was not to last.

The year following the Accords was relatively peaceful, seeing the application of the Declaration in most areas. The PLO jubilantly returned to formerly Israeli occupied territories as the Palestinian Authority. Arafat was elected president, and Palestinian self-rule in Gaza began. However, conflict continued to reign, and the statutes of the Declaration were quickly abandoned by both parties. In a last ditch effort to staunch the rising tide of violence, a second Oslo Accords were held. This second agreement divided the West Bank among Israeli and Palestinian authorities, a compromise which left both players unhappy. Later years saw the rise of Hamas, an Islamic militant group that would lead a campaign of guerilla warfare against Israeli forces for the next several decades. Attempts at reconciliation among the two states arose periodically, but none led to lasting change. The latest development in the region, Palestine’s bid for UN recognized statehood, comes at a time of continued deadlock between both parties, and the results of this move remain to be seen.

A joint Palestinian-Israeli poll from March 2010 shows that 57 percent of Palestinian and 71 percent of Israelis support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. Many western countries, including the US, have also voiced support for a Palestinian state. However, what many supporters of Palestinian statehood have overlooked is the fundamental obstacles to Palestine achieving sovereignty within the region, obstacles that most clearly stand out when approached from a realist viewpoint.

The theory of realism is at its core a belief in the self-interest of states. When faced with a world where the only certainty is self-certainty, actors have no other choice but to act according to their own agenda. Similarly, states must then believe that all other actors will only carry out actions in their own best interest. This leads to a mindset of suspicion on both sides, because without certainty nation-states have very little with which to base their security. Thus, security becomes reliant on the actions of the state itself, which encourages things like proliferation. When trust cannot exist between two actors, then it is difficult for stability to exist.

The real world effects of realism can be seen quite clearly in the conflict in the Middle East. Due to their long history of violence, and conflicting agendas, Israel and Palestine have never been able to foster trust in one another. As seen in the violent unrest after the Oslo Accords, any agreement that is made will quickly fall to the vagaries of both civic and public apprehensions. The constant threat of violence from both forces is used to excellent effect to erode any goodwill pushes towards reconciliation. Furthermore, there is a lack of political will in such a situation. Neither party wants to give up security. If Palestine were to become a sovereign, UN endorsed state; concessions would have to be made on both sides. Palestine would be forced to crack down on the actions of Hamas, and take a serious look at the legitimacy of its government, which has been called into question for corruption and human rights abuses. Israel, on the other hand, would be forced to pull out of its occupied territories, and would lose its status as the only “legitimate” authority in the region. Furthermore, if Palestine does receive enough international support to achieve statehood, an achievement that seems rather unlikely, it would nonetheless erode the significance of Israel’s support from the US. Thus, the situation would actually devalue the power of both states, which makes the probability of statehood that much less likely. Compounded with such an obvious clashing of agendas, visible areas of contention, and a fundamental lack of trust on both sides, and the idea of a “two-state solution” seems increasingly non-viable from a realist perspective.

Works Cited

Snyder, Jack. "Once World, Rival Theories." Foreign Policy. (2004): 53-56. Print.

Cohen, Michael. "Think Again: The Two State Solution." Foreign Policy. (2011): n. page. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. .

"A History of Conflict." BBC News. BBC, 2009. Web. 21 Sep 2011. .

Herzog, Michael. "The Perils of Palestine's Big Moment at the UN." Financial Times 20 Sep 2011. n. pag. Web. 21 Sep. 2011. .

I went war because... with Julia, Christopher, Signe and Haley

Benito Juárez went to war to fight for liberal ideology Casimir Pulaski went to war for George Washington in the American Revolution because "I came here, where freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it."Andrew Jackson went to war because he had been captured by the British in the Revolutionary War, his mother and brother died from diseases contracted from working for the British.

The American soldiers went to war in Vietnam because they were drafted.

China's Realistic Response

"What made the war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused Sparta," spoken centuries ago, Thucydides’ idea still reverberates in the minds of young scholars today. This bold statement serves as the basis of one of our modern day theories of international relations. Realism, the embodiment of fear, greed, and self preservation, has become the contemporary model of “power politics”. By prioritizing a states’ interest in security and its own personal ideology, to the extent where morality has lost influence, a state has decided to utilize a realists’ view to handle their foreign relations. In the realist theory a state prides itself on the tactful maneuvers exploited to shift foreign relations towards their own favor. Currently there are many states that utilize this method; however China has become that rising nation that has captured the eyes of the world.

For years there has been a conflict between China and Taiwan, and like all good stories, it has only once again become another top article in the recent issue of The New York Times. The people of China have always and still to this day believe that Taiwan is still under the sovereignty of China. Although China has fought to maintain an integral part of their nation, the United States in the past has provided aid to Taiwan in the name of democracy and support of their freedom. Despite threats China has issued in the past, the United States has usually supported their policy with Taiwan, fearless of what their relationship with China may become. Recently, however the United States has been placed in a very difficult predicament. The current Obama administration was in the process of sending new fighter jets and submarines to Taiwan, when China issued the usual threat of cutting Sino-American relations. Unlike the many times in the past the United States has refused to be the naïve savior once more. Why is it now that we fear the repercussions?

China has not created any policies detrimental to US safety, nor has there been a shift in their international conduct. So why is it now that the United States must take a moment to plan the next step of action? Years ago one could describe the world as experiencing the most ideal aspect of the Realism theory; a uni-polar hegemony. The United States was at the top of this hegemony, and served as a quasi advisor for world action. With a “tree” of nations ranked at varying levels below the United States, Americans lacked fear. Scholars acknowledged China as a growing nation; however it was not seen as a threat to the American “power”. With the recent downward slop of the US economy within the last decade, citizens of the world began to witness a shift in hegemony. China saw an advantage point in purchasing our national debt; it provided benefits for both parties. Our society had transitioned into a bi-polar world, with powers centralizing in China and the USA.

Although our world can currently be described as bi-polar, this still does not yet fully explain the sudden fear of China’s foreign policy. China is a realist state. Realism is a theory that suggests survival of the fittest. For example in a two country only world, when Country A forms an army, Country B becomes fearful of their safety and establishes their own army. This insecurity and fear is the key source of realism. It causes a continuous attempt to balance out the scale and to remain on top forms a rather dangerous lifestyle. Scholars can then transfer this strand of thought to refer to a bi-polar world, a new constant hungry and drive to be on top we can understand the hesitation the US has when negotiating with China now.

“China's growing strength, most realists argue, will lead it to pursue its interests more assertively, which will in turn lead the United States and other countries to balance against it. This cycle will generate at the least a parallel to the Cold War standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, and perhaps even a hegemonic war. Adherents of this view point to China's recent harder line on its maritime claims in the East China and South China seas and to the increasingly close relations between the United States and India as signs that the cycle of assertiveness and balancing has already begun.”( Charles Glaser)

China has become the next growing super power, and the problem is not that it has entered the map with new potential. The problem that a realist would identify is the possible threat the United States may face. If China continues to utilize realism as their primary form of international relations, fellow states will react similarly. Realism, the theory based on human nature, suggests when China responds harshly to the United States attempting to aid Taiwan, the USA will react accordingly. A threat suggests that a power exists where China can damage the United States. This possibility heavily influences one’s fear, throwing the second nation into a frantic state of defense.

A frantic nation, forced into a condition by being frightened of the possible damage to a nation is not acceptable. If every sovereign power responded to international relations in this manner, a World War would be inevitable. The bullying experienced through the realism theory, can only be quelled when the power shifts to a single hegemony once more. Although the United States would like to act morally and provide Taiwan with assistance, we must step back view this picture from a different position. If the US were to act swiftly and rashly there could be a power shift only dropping its’ position in international power. There are times when acting in one’s own self-interest is appropriate, and this situation is a time where the US can benefit through the realism theory. By responding in fear to China, and protected their own world interest by not morally helping Taiwan the USA has successfully utilized the realist theory.

Realism should be utilized in the dealings of the world, however it should not be the forerunner for the policy is to be conducted. In moderation a theory that has been based on human nature can serve best as a defensive maneuver. The moment that realism becomes the primary reaction to the happenings of the world, we all face a new issue. That state has become too responsive rather than logical, and forces other world powers to do just that to remain on par. This action only serves one purpose, and that is to ensure that war has broken lose by the end of the day. President Obama and his administration must be aware of the eminent danger to our Sino-American relations by supporting Taiwan; however we must not rally into another “arms race” to prove to China we are on top. Instead let us try to respond to this through a novel way; instead of the usual harsh rash reactions of realism, let us turn to the other theories of international relations to prevent the fear that inevitably produces war among states!

Works Cited

"China." U.S. Department of State. 6 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. .

Glaser, Charles. "Will China's Rise Lead to War? | Foreign Affairs." Home | Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations, Mar.-Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. .

Locke, Gary. "U.S. Ambassador Locke on U.S.-China Relations | USPolicy." USPolicy | Explaining US Foreign Policy to Europe. US Policy, 9 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. .

News, Cindy Sui BBC. "BBC News - Taiwan Sweats on US Arms Sales Decision." BBC - Homepage. BBC News, Taipei, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. .

“Reset” of relations

There were so many discussion on U.S.-Russian “reset”, but nobody knows exactly if it happened and what is this exactly. However, it is certainly tactical game. By offering a "reset" the Americans are not going to abandon its strategic objectives, according to which the U.S. has a global domination in the world. But methods of achieving that will be definitely revised. (Cooper) Russian acceptance will be recognized when it will not be lecturing about the "correct"democracy, "market" freedoms and "the only correct" values. (Shuster)

Anyway, both countries have their own goals to achieve by this partnership: for the United States, it is to preserve or increase dominance in the world, while for Russia - to change its perception of the Western partners, who, after the 1990s, tend to see it as weak and à priori hostile country. (Krastev) Another common objective of the United States - a global coalition to protect the stability that can prevent the collapse of the international system. (Stott)

Although "realism" has always focused on national security, it has never been an apology of the war. The main question that "realists" of modern world has to answer is how to maintain a maximum long-term peace acknowledging the imperfections of human nature and social relations. They realize that the world will never be perfect. Therefore, the countries’ policy is based not on abstract ideas of good, evil and justice, but on interest. (Krastev)

At the moment there is no positive effects of the “reset” in relations between Russia and the United States. It was just a proposal to try to bring the relationship back to normal or remove unnecessary tension. (Battler) It is obvious that the new American administration is trying to get rid of the inheritance of the previous administration and update all policies, including foreign. For this moment, there is no clear strategy how will this process, probably because foreign policy poorly versed Obama and Hillary Clinton. In comparison, Condoleezza Rice, a professional politician is in the geo-strategic and international relations, where Hillary Clinton - an expert on the "internal" policy. (Kosyrev) From this perspective, the "reset" does not look like "tactical game" , it is just another way to look at the whole range of US-Russian relations. (Battler)

But anyway, the current American administration is a classical example of “realistic” strategy: absence of permanent enemies or alliances, allows it to exchange easily friendship with Iraq to friendship with Russia. The stated policy by Hillary Clinton's "three Ds» (Diplomacy, Defense, Development) is actually consistent with the approach inherent to political realism. (Gamage)However, it is impossible to believe that the U.S. would abandon the missile defense system in Eastern Europe or NATO expansion. (Budoff and Foley)

This policy is determined by objective factors. First of all, the geo-economics runs with existence of unipolarity , where the center engaged by the United States. Secondly, the geo-strategy (a superset of geo-economics), is also centered by the U.S. (Battler)

The first factor caused by economic power of the United States, surpassing Japan(next in the list) almost in three times. The second - with the foreign policy potential (FPP)* (Battler), the amount that at the end of the Bush administration has reached 730 billion dollars, is actually ahead all developed countries’ FPP combined. (Miller)

These parameters are compelling the United States, at a minimum, maintain sole hegemony in world politics. At the same time FPP (which is more than 30% of the budget) is an overload, even for such a superpower like the U.S. (the best option for the budget ratio of the runway for a superpower should not exceed 20%). Hence the challenge: to reduce FPP to redirect freed amounts to solving the problems in domestic politics. (Battler)

In fact, what has already begun is reducing of military spending for the next fiscal year to $ 550 billion. The decline in international activities requires the United States two important changes in its international policies: to shift part of the cost of maintaining global economic stability and security of its allies in Europe and Japan, and remove not necessary tension in the relations with the strategic enemies: Russia and China. (Executive office of management and budget of the President of the USA)

Also the current events on international map make some countries to reconsider their international policy: crisis in economics or world politics cause alliances: geo-economic temporary alliances, that during the high-risk crisis can be developed till geopolitical alliances. (Sestanovich)

Both the U.S. and Russia today nave extremely nervous mood, because now they again realized the fact of their vulnerability. The financial crisis can turn into a paranoid even completely sane people, but in the case of the United States and Russia, it is even more expected: paranoia has always been a part of their relationship. (Kosyrev) (Nalivaiko) The increasing economic and political destabilization of the former Soviet Union created a situation in which both Russia and the West feel obliged to intervene. However, in the same time, Russia can recognize intervention by the West as an attempt of encirclement of Russia, while the West is considering intervention of Russia as the Kremlin's desire to obtain the area of the self-interest. (Kosyrev) Any resumption of negotiations between Russia and the United States will be complicated by political and geopolitical shifts in the former Soviet Union. (Shuster)

Of course, America's strategic partnership with Russia will demonstrate the ability to maintain U.S. leadership in the post-American world, while Russia will be able to prevent the formation of partnerships between two “big” nations, where the United States and China will be the only serious players. If Washington can establish negotiations with Iran without Russia, Moscow will lose its strategic importance, and if negotiations pluck, Iran could become a nuclear power and American arguments for intervention will look more convincing, because the U.S. tried to use the methods of diplomacy. (Gates) Due to this, U.S. policy has reasonable expectation that its pressure on Russia in terms of cooperation now can bring more success than ever before. (Battler)

It is the fact that Kissinger restarted the US-Russian dialogue - a visual indication that Washington takes seriously the Russian fascination with realism. Also the duo Obama - Clinton is very well positioned to offer a "realistic policy" towards Russia. But аs history teaches us that a successful "politics of realism" of any administration requires this administration not to be positioned itself as a "realistic". Nixon was elected, not because he was a realist, he was elected because he was a fierce fighter in the Cold War. That antirealistic record and Obama, and his secretary of state could play a role in the return of realism in American foreign policy. (Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia)

* The foreign policy potential (FPP) of a state is calculated by the potential financial cost for international activities. Its main components are the costs of defense and international operations (plus all other means of foreign influence, which share is usually small relative to the "principal").

Works Cited

Baker, Peter. Russia and U.S. Report Breakthrough on Arms. Washington: The New York Times, 2010.

Battler, Alex. The 21st century: The world without Russia. American University & College Press/American Book Publishing, 2004.

Budoff, Peter and Else Foley. Clinton stresses "three Ds": defense, diplomacy and development. Washington: Medill on the Hill/Northwestern University, 2009.

Commission on U.S. Policy toward Russia. The Right direction for US Policy Toward Russia. Nixon Center, 2009.

Cooper, Helene. Promises of "Fresh Start" for U.S.-Russia Relations. New York: The New York Times, 2009.

Executive office of management and budget of the President of the USA. THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009, HISTORICAL TABLES. Washington: U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, n.d.

Gamage, Daya. Diplomacy-Development-Defense: Tools Obama Administration will use To address global challenges – Hillary Clinton. Washington: Asian tribune, 2009.

Gates, R. A Balanced Strategy. Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age. Foreign Affairs, 2009.

Kosyrev, Dmitry. U.S.-Russian relations have been reset. What next? Deauville: RIA News, 2011.

Krastev, Ivan. Methods of "reset". Moscow: Russian Journal, 2009.

Miller, Matt. The courageous Progressive Caucus budget. New York: The Economist, 2011.

Nalivaiko, Peter. Russian-American relations at the present stage: there was a "reboot"? Moscow: UDK Studio, 2010.

Sestanovich, S. What has Moscow done? Rebuilding U.S.-Russian Relations. Foreign Affairs, 2008.

Shuster, Simon. US-Russia Relations: In Need of a New Reset. Moscow: TIME World, 2010.

Stott, Michael. Chilly welcome awaits Obama in Russia. New York: Reuters, 2009.

Sino-US Relations on Taiwan Issue

Recently, the United States and Taiwan are up to a negociation on arm sales. Taiwan sent out a request to USA for an arm sale. The request includes new F-16 C/D fighter jets and upgrades for existing F-16s. US is still hesitate to make a decision due to the reason that the arm sale might infuriate China. Towards US’s reaction, China has warned that US should carefully come up with the decision, otherwise it would damage the relationship between the two countries. At the same time, the Tawan Defense Minister Kao Hua-Chu is trying to draw attention from US with the recent plane crash during a millitary training caused by aging F-5. The request also revealed the fact that Taiwan’s millitary is at its low.

Obviously, Taiwan is desire to strengthen its power as its millitary power is threatened by mainland China. Since 1949, Taiwan has never identified itself as part of China. Taiwan seized every opportunity to join the United Nation in order to be recognized as a country; unfortunately, it failed each time it attemped to do that. The main reason that Taiwan’s request was declined is that it is not as powerful as Mainland China. Therefore, Taiwan is trying to keep up with its economy, politics and millitary. That is one of the major reasons that Taiwan asked the United States for help; it wants to balance the power between itself and China. However, it should meanwhile realize that Taiwan cannot continue trading arms with US in the future since the United States can never aid Taiwan with arms without consider the sovereignty of Mainland China. In other words, Taiwan has to develop its own millitary industry so that it can try to surpass Mainland China. But the reality is that it is impossible for Mainland China to indulge the development of Taiwan; it is a country’s responsibility to protect its sovereignty.

Taiwan question has always been the most sensitive and significant problem between the relationship of China and the United States. The United States seems to make a flexible use of Taiwan. In 1949, when China was just established，the relationship between the United States and China was neutral since China started with no wealth or position in the world. “The United States stops military aid to Taiwan. Both the U.S. and the United Nations fail to give the PRC diplomatic recognition.” When the Korean War came in 1950, the relations started to worsen as the United States was threathened by China; therefore, U.S. decided to protect Taiwan form possible attack by Mainland China. U.S. also sent in Seventh Fleet to guard the sea area in between China and Taiwan. A year after, U.S. resumes aid either in economy or millitary for Taiwan.

“ Economic and military aid from the United States resumes with the establishment of the Military Assistance and Advisory Group in Taiwan. From this time until the mid-1960s the U.S. offers $1.5 billion in aid to the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan with the hope of changing the island into an industrialized nation. Taiwan begins a giant land reform project that redistributes the country's farmland and helps turn the economy around.”

During the period from 1950s to 1960s, the Sino-US relationship was intense because of the Cold War, Korean War and the Taiwan Problem. While China was receiving help from Soviet Union, the fear led to all the aid US offered Taiwan because it wanted to balance the power in the bipolar world.

In the 1970s, since both Soviet Union and China had a divergence on the political standard of Communism, the United States was able to replace Soviet Union. From then on, the relations between the two countries started to change.

“The U.S. formally announces its "two China" policy, supporting admission of the People's Republic of China into the U.N. while preserving Taiwan's membership in the General Assembly.”

After Kissinger’s visit to China, Taiwan was kicked out from the United Nation. Fllowing Kissinger’s visit, President Nixon made a visit to China too. Taiwan problem was the first thing Mao brought up. 1970s was a huge turning point for the relationship between China and the United States. At the same time, China started the reformation.

The relationship between China and U.S. went through four stages; from neutral to bad, then fine to instable and finally stable. The changes of the relationship all depended on the power both countries seize. At first, when China was still powerless, U.S. did not even bother to do anything to it. However, when China started to get involed in the conflicts within the world; U.S. reacted negatively. As soon as U.S. realized the potentiality of China, it started to adjust the relations. Since U.S. had to balance its relationship with both Mainland China and Taiwan, the relationship between itself and China was not so smooth during that period. As the position of China in the world is getting higer, the relationship between both countries is much stabler now. This is all about power shifting and national interests.

At the present, a fierce election is happening in Taiwan, both Democratic People‟s Progressive Party (DPP) and Kuomingtang (KMT) are criticizing each other for different opinions on politics, DPP even claimed that Ma Ying-jeou is exchanging the sovereignty for a short-term economic benefics from Mainland China. It’s likely that the relationship between Mainland China and Taiwan would worsen if DPP is elected. So from the Mainland China perspective, it hopes that Ma will be re-elected. There are now only 6 months left for the presidential elections in both United States and Taiwan, no one is going to know how the U.S.-China-Taiwan relations will be as the leathers are changing, but we all desire a peaceful place to live.

Sources:

"TIME FOR US TO STOP ARMS SALES." Chinadaily. September 19, 2011 Monday. LexisNexis.com

Shin-yuan LAI, Douglas H. Paal. "Facing the Challenges of Cross-Strait Relations in 2012." Carnegie Endowment. THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011 – FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2011. WASHINGTON, D.C. .

Infoplease. John Gettings and Beth Rowen.Pearson Education < Taiwan Timeline — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taiwantime1.html#ixzz1YZEGUqwV >.

MICHAEL SAINSBURY. "China up in arms over US sale." The Australian September 21, 2011 Wednesday, WORLD; Pg. 11.