Y'know, Cold War never died out in Asia. Soviet Union is gone but US swing the gun barrel down at China just as quick. But unlike Soviet Union, amid all the provocations China has little to fight back, or years away from having the capability to tell the West to back off.
China needs to protest because this cuts too close to its home waters. As if being named as the aggressor ain't enough, at this range, not only China North Sea Fleet is within strike radius, same goes for China's political and key industrial capitals as well.
Don't know if that'd have impact on next year's China defense budget, but if they do, I bet on the defense-related stock will get another boost.
I have to disagree with you on this, MwRYum. The Cold War died out in Asia in the 70's, before it died out in Europe. Remember Kissinger, Nixon, and then finally, formal relations under Carter?
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the incidents in 1989, it looked like it was going to start all over again, but for some reason, it didn't. Western investments kept coming in, diplomatic relations multiplied, and trade continued to flourish.
From last December until recent times, it has seemed that a new cold war was restarting, between the US and China, in Asia. But don't forget that during the Bush years, especially from 2005 on, it looked like a cold war was being reignited between the US and Russia. And now we have a "reset" in that arena.
I don't think that this campaign which the US has carried out of "pressuring" China, from the Copenhagen climate summit last year through all kinds of regional issues like Iran sanctions, the Cheonan, the South China Sea disputes, and other, more "ideological" matters such as the google dispute, can go on forever. This policy will go on, or rather, has gone on, as long as it served, or seemed to serve, American objectives. I think they don't any more. I think the G-20 meeting and the ongoing Cancun negotiations have shown that China cannot be isolated so easily. I think these international events have shown that the US is risking its own isolation when it tries to target China. I think that this is why, in October, sort of, in preparation for the G-20 meetings, Robert Gates softened the tone towards China, and why both the US and SK then seemed to take a softer stance towards the DPRK, until the recent incident. In my view, the US has changed its mind about this policy.
As far as China needing to protest, I think China is handling this just fine. And, whereas one or two months ago, China was complaining that the drills were within striking distance of Beijing, amidst the recent tension, the American press noted that Chinese complaints were not as stringent as before. You get the feeling that the Chinese leadership, implicitly, gave their OK to the maneuvers, for the time being. All of a sudden, the Chinese leadership does not feel so vulnerable, as the US leadership seems to have signalled a change of course.
Meanwhile, China still seems to be backing the DPRK wholeheartedly. Their aim, I think, is to deter the ROK government from going all out. And this time around, (unlike a few months ago) China knows that the US also wants the ROK govt to cool it.
The situation today, on the surface, seems kind of dire. I think the SK government and the Japanese right wing (Maehara, Okada, today) have not quite adjusted to the latest American twist. There is certainly danger in this situation, because sometimes, the tail can wag the dog; i.e., the Japanese right wing and the current ROK government could cause the US to act against its best wishes. But the more time passes, the more reality sinks in on the various players. Neither the ROK nor Japan, any more than Vietnam, can maintain a hostile position towards China on their own, without the support of a large outside power.
ff