HAI PHONG, Vietnam (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter pledged $18 million on Sunday to help Vietnam buy U.S. patrol boats, shortly after touring a Vietnamese coast guard vessel that was hit by a Chinese ship during a skirmish in the South China Sea.

Carter, who has been focusing on maritime security during an 11-day trip to the Asia-Pacific, visited the Vietnamese navy headquarters and coast guard headquarters before boarding the ship.

Carter is on his second visit to Asia since becoming defense secretary earlier this year. He said he planned to sign a "vision statement" on Monday with his Vietnamese counterpart to guide the expansion of bilateral military ties.

"We need to modernize our partnership," Carter told reporters during a visit to the northern city of Hai Phong. "After 20 years, there is more we could do together."

As part of that effort, he said Washington would provide $18 million to help Vietnam buy U.S.-made Metal Shark patrol boats to help Hanoi improve its maritime defense capabilities.

U.S. and Vietnamese navies had been "building habits of cooperation" by working together, he said. In April they conducted exercises under rules laid out in the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea, a set of regulations approved by multiple maritime nations last year at a meeting in China.

Carter opened his trip to the Asia-Pacific by calling for all countries to stop island-building efforts in disputed, resource-rich regions of the South China Sea. He reiterated that call at the Shangri-La Dialogue security conference on Saturday.

Carter recognized that several countries, including Vietnam, had conducted land reclamation projects in the region but said Chinese activity, covering some 2,000 acres, had outstripped the others and raised questions about Beijing's long-term intentions.

"I will be discussing further with Vietnam the proposal that I was talking about in Singapore, namely for all of the claimants to these disputed areas of the South China Sea ... permanently to halt reclamations," he said.

The Vietnamese coast guard vessel toured by Carter was targeted with Chinese water cannons and rammed by a Chinese ship during a confrontation last year.

The incident occurred after China moved an oil drilling rig into waters claimed by Vietnam. The rig remained for about two months protected by Chinese navy vessels, which were repeatedly challenged by Vietnamese ships.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 70 people were injured while filming this movie with 100 untamed lions

Vietnam took delivery of two new missile boats on Tuesday made locally and modeled on Russian vessels, the latest move by its military to strengthen maritime defenses as tensions simmer over sovereignty in the South China Sea.

The two Tarantul-class corvettes, known as Molniyas, are equipped with 16 missiles and automatic weapons and are among six ordered by the navy, two of which were delivered last year. The missiles have a range of 130 kilometers.

The announcement was carried on the Vietnamese government's news website and comes amid diplomatic rumblings over land reclamation work by rival claimants and United States concern over what it said was China's placement of mobile artillery systems in contested territory.

Vietnam's naval defense capabilities have been boosted by Russian hardware, including state-of-the-art kilo-class submarines recently equipped with a Russian land attack variant of the Klub missile. They are capable of precision strikes within a range of 300km.

Many experts see Vietnam's strengthening of its defenses and its diplomatic ties with Japan, the Philippines and the United States of late as signs of its determination to counter China's growing assertiveness after a bitter falling out with Beijing last year.

Deputy Defence Minister Truong Quang Khanh said the new boats showed Vietnam could "fully master the technology and techniques of modern military shipbuilding" and would boost its combat power and help protect its maritime sovereignty, according to the report.

It said the vessels could take on warships, amphibious ships and corvettes, protect submarines and carry out scouting.

China remains an important economic and political ally for Vietnam, but ties have been strained over competing claims to the Spratly and Paracel islands. China says it has jurisdiction over nine-tenths of the South China Sea, putting it at odds with four Southeast Asian states.

SEE ALSO: China is using one of the most dangerous conflicts on the planet as a distraction

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 facts that show how different China is from the rest of the world

Vietnam is in talks with European and U.S. contractors to buy fighter jets, maritime patrol planes and unarmed drones, sources said, as it looks to beef up its aerial defenses in the face of China's growing assertiveness in disputed waters.

The battle-hardened country has already taken possession of three Russian-built Kilo-attack submarines and has three more on order as part of a $2.6 billion deal agreed in 2009. Upgrading its air force would give Vietnam one of the most potent militaries in Southeast Asia.

The previously unreported aircraft discussions have involved Swedish defense contractor Saab, European consortium Eurofighter, the defense wing of Airbus and U.S. firms Lockheed Martin and Boeing, said industry sources with direct knowledge of the talks.

Defense contractors had made multiple visits to Vietnam in recent months although no deals were imminent, said the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. Some of the sources characterized the talks as ongoing.

One Western defense contractor said Hanoi wanted to modernize its air force by replacing more than 100 ageing Russian MiG-21 fighters while reducing its reliance on Moscow for weapons for its roughly 480,000-strong military.

Vietnam has ordered about a dozen more Russian Sukhoi Su-30 front-line fighters to supplement a fleet of older Su-27s and Su-30s.

"We had indications they want to reduce their dependence on Russia. Their growing friendship with America and Europe will help them to do that," said the defense contractor.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, during a visit to Vietnam on Sunday, pledged $18 million to help Hanoi buy U.S. patrol boats. But any deal with Lockheed or Boeing would likely be the most significant involving a U.S. firm since Washington started easing a long-time embargo on the sale of lethal weapons to Vietnam in October.

The Vietnamese Foreign Ministry said it had forwarded questions from Reuters about the aircraft discussions to the appropriate authorities.

Boeing said in an email it believed it had capabilities in "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms that may meet Vietnam's modernization needs". It gave no specifics.

Lockheed and Saab declined to comment. Eurofighter and Airbus did not respond to a request for comment.

Chinese oil rig

While communist parties rule both Vietnam and China and annual trade has risen to nearly $60 billion, Vietnam has long been wary of China, especially over Beijing's claims to most of the South China Sea.

China's placement of an oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam for more than two months last year infuriated Vietnam and underscored the coastal country's need to upgrade its maritime patrol capabilities in particular.

Vietnam's military budget is a state secret, although data collated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) put defense spending at $3.4 billion in 2013, more than double the amount a decade ago.

Experts say actual spending could be much higher given the hardware acquired over recent years.

Among the aircraft under discussion with Vietnam were Saab's Gripen E fourth-generation fighter jet as well as the Saab 340 or 2000 twin-engine turboprops fitted with maritime patrol and airborne early warning systems, said a source with direct knowledge of those talks.

Vietnam had held talks over the Typhoon warplane made by Eurofighter as well as the F/A-50 light fighter jointly developed by Korea Aerospace Industries <047810.KS> and Lockheed, separate sources said.

Lockheed had discussed its Sea Hercules, the maritime patrol version of its C-130 transport plane.

Meanwhile, an additional source said Boeing wanted to sell its maritime surveillance aircraft program, which involves putting state-of-the-art P-8 Poseidon plane surveillance technology, although not anti-submarine capabilities, on a business jet.

Vietnam had also looked at unarmed surveillance drones made by Western and Asian contractors.

Vietnam war legacy

Vietnam has already started moving slowly away from Russia in recent years, buying Canadian Twin Otter amphibious planes and Airbus Defence CASA C-212 maritime patrol aircraft for its coastguard and Airbus C-295 transport planes.

Airbus Defence had been in talks to offer maritime patrol and airborne early warning systems on the C-295, a source said.

In addition, Airbus Helicopters had been in preliminary talks with the Vietnamese military.

Despite increasingly warm ties with Washington, some experts said the legacy of the Vietnam War might make Hanoi wary about buying too much U.S. weaponry, possibly giving Sweden an edge.

"There is no ideological bias (in Vietnam) with Sweden," said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Asia.

"The Gripen E will be a cost-effective option. Saab can offer a package that includes maritime patrol and airborne early warning aircraft."

However, one U.S. source familiar with Vietnam's goals said Hanoi saw Washington as a more reliable partner should tension with China escalate.

"Vietnam is interested in building a much closer relationship with the United States, but they also don't want to anger China," said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

"They're looking for a balanced, phased, or step-by-step approach.'

(Editing by Dean Yates)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what 'Game of Thrones' stars look like in real life

All religious faiths are victims of persecution somewhere.

Over the last year “a horrified world has watched the results of what some have aptly called violence masquerading as religious devotion” in several nations, observed the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in its latest annual report.

The Commission highlighted 27 countries for particularly vicious treatment of religious minorities. Nine states make the first tier, “Countries of Particular Concern,” in State Department parlance.

Burma. Despite recent reforms, noted the Commission, “these steps have not yet improved conditions for religious freedom and related human rights in the country, nor spurred the Burmese government to curtail those perpetrating abuses.”

China. President Xi Jinping’s attempt to tighten the state’s control over all dissent has impacted believers, who “continue to face arrests, fines, denials of justice, lengthy prison sentences, and in some cases, the closing or bulldozing of places of worship.”

Eritrea. Everyone suffers under a repressive, fanatical, and isolationist regime: “The government regularly tortures and beats political and religious prisoners; however, religious prisoners are sent to the harshest prisons and receive some of the cruelest punishments.”

Iran. Persecution has increased since the ascension of President Hassan Rouhani as president: “The government of Iran continues to engage in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and executions based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused.”

North Korea. Despite a handful of official churches, “Genuine freedom of religion or belief is non-existent. Individuals secretly engaging in religious activities are subject to arrest, torture, imprisonment, and sometimes execution.

Saudi Arabia. Not one church, synagogue, or other house of worship is allowed to operate. The monarchy “continues to prosecute and imprison individuals for dissent, apostasy, blasphemy, and sorcery.”

Sudan. The small Christian community suffers from the government’s “policies of Islamization and Arabization.” Moreover, apostasy and conversion are punished.

Turkmenistan. In this former Soviet republic religious liberty remains highly restricted: “Police raids and harassment of registered and unregistered religious groups continued.”

 Uzbekistan. The most populous Central Asian state is determined “to enforce a highly restrictive religion law and to impose severe restrictions on all independent religious activity.”

The USCIRF also recommended that another eight nations join the forgoing as CPCs.

Central African Republic. CAR has been rent by violence between antagonistic militias. For much of last year it “was engulfed in a religious conflict.”

Egypt. Although President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has attempted to use Coptic Christians for his political advantage, “the Egyptian government has not adequately protected religious minorities” from discrimination, prosecution, and violence.

Iraq. The situation greatly deteriorated last year. While the Islamic State was the worst perpetrator, “the Iraqi government also contributed to the deterioration in religious freedom conditions.”

Nigeria. Today the greatest threat to religious liberty is the radical Islamist group Boko Haram, which attacks Christians and moderate Muslims.

Pakistan. This U.S. ally tolerates “chronic sectarian violence” against religious minorities and the promiscuous misuse of the infamous “blasphemy” law.

Syria. Unfortunately, members of most religions now suffer at the hands of one faction or another in the multi-sided civil war.

Tajikistan. The government “suppresses and punishes all religious activity independent of state control, particularly the activities of Muslims, Protestants, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Vietnam. Despite a number of economic reforms, this communist state “continues to control all religious activities through law and administrative oversight, restrict severely independent religious practice, and repress individuals and religious groups.”

Further, the Commission cited ten so-called tier 2 nations, where violations are severe, but a notch below those of the CPCs: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Russia, and Turkey.

As I pointed out in Forbes online: “Religious liberty is the first freedom, the bedrock liberty of conscience upon which civil and political freedoms rest. With religious liberty under siege around the world, people of goodwill should stand for the rights of believers everywhere.”

America continues to protect religious liberty, but the foundation is cracking. Americans should learn the lessons overseas and redouble their efforts to prevent similar fates at home.

SEE ALSO: It's increasingly hard to keep the peace at one of the world's holiest places

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Forget the Apple Watch — here's the new watch everyone on Wall Street wants

Nearly half of the world's population lives in China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which have a combined GDP of $21.2 trillion.

More importantly, these countries all also happen to be part of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a "mega-regional" trade agreement.

And that fits into the larger trend in the global economy: regional trade reform is "on the move," according to HSBC's Douglas Lippoldt.

Other huge (and controversial) proposed trade agreements include the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which encompasses twelve countries in the Asia Pacific (including the US), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a free-trade agreement between the EU and the US that would be the largest planned regional trade agreement in terms of GDP.

These agreements "promise to facilitate trade and reduce protectionist measures" that still impede trade in many economies, according to Lippoldt. However, the potential adjustment costs have some analysts and politicians worried.

Still, overall, "their anticipated depth and breadth of coverage could promote structural reform across much of the world economy," according to Lippoldt. 

SEE ALSO: This brilliant map resizes each US state proportionally to the size of its economy

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 clever iPhone tricks only power users know about

East Asia has avoided major military conflicts since the 1970’s. After the United States fought three wars in the preceding four decades originating in East Asia, with a quarter of a million lost American lives, this is no small achievement.

It is owing to the maturity and good sense of most of the states of the region, their emphasis on economic growth over settling scores, and the American alliances and security presence that have deterred military action and provided comfort to most peoples and states.

But above all else, it is due to the reconciliation of the Asia-Pacific’s major powers, the United States and China, initiated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and nurtured by every American administration and Chinese leadership since.

Judging by recent public commentary from a number of American foreign policy experts, this reconciliation is in danger of unraveling. Some argue that it should. In reaction principally to China’s aggressive land reclamation projects on disputed atolls and reefs in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea that seem to prefigure establishment of military outposts far from China’s coast, they argue that the policies pursued by eight presidents beginning with Nixon are outdated.

They contend that we need to accept that strategic accommodation with a China seeking to dominate the western Pacific is impossible and we should accept, even embrace, a relationship built on rivalry, with cooperation sidelined.

In a world beset with grave challenges to order, established governments, and accepted international norms, with vast swathes of the greater Middle East ungoverned, ungovernable, and home to threatening insurgencies, with Russia destabilizing a neighboring sovereign state through military intervention and pressure, it is not in the U.S. interest to be complicit in turning the world’s most stable, orderly, economically dynamic region into yet one more area of conflict.

If we follow the advice of those who seek to define our relationship with China as one of unchecked rivalry, that is what we invite.

U.S. relations with China have never been and never will be easy to manage. China is the world’s preeminent rising power. Its military has gone from bloated and backward to well-funded and technologically advanced in two decades. Its economy challenges ours as the world’s largest. Its political system is highly repressive and intolerant of dissent. It views U.S. alliances in the region as threatening to its security and therefore seeks to weaken them.

On the other hand, the United States and China, individually and collectively, are the foundations of the global economy and the main engines of global growth. China is our largest trading partner besides Canada, and has been the fastest growing market for U.S. exports of goods and services for over a decade. After years of undermining the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, China is now firmly committed to it and has worked with us to seek to halt the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs.

As the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases and consumers of energy, the United States and China have a powerful interest in addressing these two challenges together, as the Chinese began to demonstrate when President Xi Jinping reached agreement with President Obama to cap its future emissions by 2030 and to sharply increase use of renewable sources of energy. With China facing terrorism in its western Muslim majority areas and surpassing the United States as an importer of oil from the Persian Gulf, it has no more interest than we do in seeing Islamicist radicalism and insurgency gain a greater foothold anywhere.

China is thoroughly integrated into the global economy. Our Fortune 500 companies see China as a market critical to their growth. In this respect, China bears no resemblance to the former Soviet Union, whose economy operated behind an Iron Curtain with client states and little serious interaction with foreign companies or countries.

China is now expanding its multilateral economic footprint through the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which groups 57 members despite misguided U.S. efforts to constrain its establishment. 

So as a practical matter, it is hard to envisage how a relationship predicated on across-the-board rivalry will either be successful in a world where China is so embedded or serve U.S. interests in a world where we need to, and sometimes do, cooperate on critical issues.

So how are we to evaluate what is going on in the South China Sea, where besides its land reclamation projects China has made ambiguous but disquieting claims to maritime rights in 1.5 million square miles inconsistent with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea; expelled Philippine vessels from their traditional fishing grounds and denied the jurisdiction of an international tribunal seeking to adjudicate Philippine and Chinese claims; explored for oil protected by an armada of PLA and Coast Guard vessels in waters claimed by Vietnam; and called its claims to every land feature in the South China Sea “indisputable”?

Chinese claims and conduct have been deeply concerning, and have merited and received a strong response by the other claimants to the islands (Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, and Taiwan). The United States response has been both diplomatic and military:

• publicly calling out China’s objectionable behavior,
• developing a diplomatic strategy that has seen the other claimant states under the umbrella of the Association of Southeast Nations make unprecedentedly clear public statements of solidarity, and
• deepening our security partnerships with other claimants by lifting the arms embargo on Vietnam and reviving the previously moribund alliance with the Philippines.

Most recently, the U.S. Pacific Command conducted surveillance operations near Chinese artificial islands, with a CNN correspondent on board, to demonstrate that the U.S. military will insist on its right to sail on and fly above international waters.

There is more the United States can do, diplomatically and militarily, to demonstrate to China the costs of its actions, to deter conflict, and to uphold international law and norms in the South China Sea. We should do so in a way that provides the Chinese with an “off ramp” to deescalate, using Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States in September as an action-forcing event.

Even as we deal with this important issue, we need to keep in perspective what Chinese actions mean, and what they don’t mean. Chinese forces have not sought to expel claimants from those Spratly Islands that they occupy, in fact in much greater numbers (by a factor of 4:1) than China does. The common media meme, that the 60 percent of the world’s commerce that flows through the South China Sea is somehow threatened by China, is absurd.

China is at least as dependent on others for the free flow of goods, and it has taken no action to hinder it. It also bears recalling that this vast region has no indigenous population; it is not the Ukraine, no less the Sudetenland, with no population pressured by military force to rejoin an irredentist claimant. Still, there will have to be significant changes in China’s attitude toward its claims and its fellow claimants, including demilitarization of the land features, if frictions are to decline to an acceptable level.

Do China’s unacceptable actions in the South China Sea portend how China will behave more broadly in the world if and when it acquires the military capacity to do so? 

Beijing still has considerable constraints against making its current assertiveness in the South China Sea a model for future behavior elsewhere. China has no military alliances, unlike the United States with its large network of global allies. It has no overseas bases. It has little modern experience in combat, and deeply ingrained reluctance to intervene in foreign disputes. It is not seeking to spread its political system, but rather is in a defensive crouch against what it sees as external threats to its system. It holds as a fundamental principle of international relations respect for state sovereignty.

While China’s conduct in the South China Sea is a challenge to its neighbors and for us, we should be careful about making assumptions of likely aggressive Chinese behavior in other very different settings. For China, the South China Sea involves sovereignty claims. The Chinese call sovereignty a “core interest,” by which they mean they are prepared to use force if necessary to defend it. Taiwan, the Senkaku islands disputed with Japan, and its border with India also concern Chinese sovereignty claims.

In all cases, the Chinese have used military threats and deployments to convey warnings, though they more often have relied on political and economic pressure and inducements to signal resolve. It is a considerable stretch to project Chinese military belligerence as a standard feature of the international landscape on issues not involving sovereignty from its use of military threats, though troubling, on these most sensitive sovereignty-related issues.

The United States has not exactly been passive in the face of possible aggressive behavior by China. Our network of alliances in Asia has been markedly strengthened in recent years. The military aspects of the “rebalance” policy are leading to deployment of our most advanced aircraft and vessels in greater numbers to the Pacific theater. 

U.S. declaratory policy to defend Japanese claims in the Senkakus has served as a bookend in Northeast Asia to U.S. deeper involvement in South China Sea issues in Southeast Asia. These are appropriate and prudent measures for the defense of U.S. interests and those of our allies, not a quiet accommodation at all costs.

Our security, and that of our partners, will not be aided, however, by a strategy that suggests we have decided that China is, or inevitably will be, an adversary. Our allies and partners in Asia certainly welcome our presence, security and otherwise, in the face of a rising and more assertive China, but they do not welcome hostility toward China.

They want to see us work out or at least manage our differences, and to do so in a way that promotes continued economic dynamism and lowers tensions in the region. That will require us sometimes to resist unwelcome Chinese behavior that threatens to destabilize the region. It does not require that we make dubious pessimistic assumptions about China’s future behavior and set up a hostile dynamic leading to a downward spiral. 

China, not the United States, will make the critical decisions about its future. If despite our best efforts, it takes steps that harm the security of our allies and partners or undermine global norms and order, that will be its decision, not ours, and we will need to adjust our strategy accordingly.

We should not, however, discard the approach taken by eight presidents since Nixon in favor of an assumption of inevitable hostility and a strategy of across-the-board rivalry that may be compelling in international relations theory but which no president has found persuasive.

I hope and expect that the ninth president since Nixon, though faced with an evolving China, will not discard the playbook used by the American statesmen who built and nurtured the U.S.-China relationship and built a generation of peace in Asia.

SEE ALSO: Did China's stock market bubble just pop?

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This massive outdoor escalator in China is 10 stories high

Beijing may be stirring up new resentment among nations bordering the South China Sea by moving an oil rig back to an area of the coast of Vietnam.

China’s Maritime Safety Administration said the rig, the $1 billion Hiyang Sgiyou 981, would conduct “ocean drilling operations” in search of oil and gas from June 25 to Aug. 20, about 75 nautical miles south of Sanya, a resort city on the Chinese island province of Hainan, according to Reuters. That site also is about 100 nautical miles east of Vietnam’s coast.

Beijing urged all vessels traveling in the area to stay at least 2,000 meters away to ensure their own safety and that of those working on the rig.

Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Vietnam’s maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the region extends fully 200 miles from its coast. China has a self-declared EEZ called the “nine-dash line,” not recognized by the U.N., which overlaps with Vietnam’s EEZ.

In fact, Beijing claims most of the South China Sea, which is believed to be rich in oil and gas reserves and already is a route for $5 trillion in seaborne trade annually. Beijing’s EEZ, meanwhile, also conflicts with U.N.-backed territorial claims by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan.

The Chinese rig will operate in that general overlapping area, as it did more than a year ago. On May 1, 2014, the rig began exploratory drilling in the area, rousing resentment in Vietnam, which has long accused China of bullying its smaller neighbor.

China’s move led to deadly protests in Vietnam, the most violent the country had seen in years and the worst breach in relations between the two countries since they fought a brief border war in 1979.

But on July 16 2014, China began to move it away. Beijing said the reason was to protect the structure from the approaching Typhoon Rammasun, but a leading Vietnamese military officer, Maj. Gen. Le Ma Luong, said that was “just an excuse”and that China was backing down because of his country’s “strong reactions” to its presence.

At the time, the China National Petroleum Corp., which operates the rig, said it was suspending its work because it had found “signs of oil and gas” in its exploratory drilling and would conduct follow up assessment of the results.

The location of the rig this year is not as close to Vietnam’s coast as it was last year. It is now closer to Hainan Island than it was a year ago, and therefore Beijing might argue that it is within Hainan’s EEZ.

In 2014 it was operating farther south near the Paracel Islands, which both China and Vietnam claim as their territory.

Nevertheless, there has been increasing concern in Southeast Asia about China’s accelerated activity in the South China Sea. Beijing has been reclaiming land in the region, transforming reefs and other small land masses into both civilian and military bases of operations. It also has increased its military exercises in the area.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Take a tour of the $367 million jet that will soon be called Air Force One

China’s aggressive posture toward the South China Sea has been stirring tensions in the region, and a new national security law suggests that Beijing is just getting started.

The new law calls for security to be maintained in all fields, including culture, education, and cyberspace.

Moreover, as reported by The New York Times, the law’s passage indicates that there has also been a meaningful shift in how Chinese leaders view their country’s “core interests.”

In years past,  China's core interests were believed to mean specific and limited territorial matters, such as those regarding Taiwan and Tibet, that the communist country determined to be internal matters.

The new law is reportedly an indication that the “core interests” have been stretched.

"In 2010, Chinese and foreign officials and scholars began debating whether the South China Sea was now a core interest,"The Times’ Beijing bureau chief Edward Wong writes.

"Under the new definition ... the term does encompass the South China Sea and any other sovereignty issues of importance to China (think Arunachal Pradesh in India, and the islands in the East China Sea that Japan calls the Senkaku and China calls the Diaoyu)."

If the shipping channels and islands of the South China Sea are now counted as “core interests” by China, then it is likely to continue to push for greater control over the sea and the $5 trillion in shipping that passes through it each year.

US officials, for their part, have repudiated China’s posture toward the region.

“As China seeks to make sovereign land out of sandcastles and redraw maritime boundaries, it is eroding regional trust and undermining investor confidence,” said US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken in late May.

In recent months, Chinese ships have clashed with vessels from Vietnam, with both governments naming the other as aggressor in several incidents. 

The Philippines has also reported confrontations with Chinese ships in disputed waters. China has accused the Philippines of escalating the situation.

“Certain countries are roping in countries from outside the region to get involved in the South China Sea issue … deliberately exaggerating the tense atmosphere …” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said in late June.

At the center of those disputed waters, land reclamation projects on the Spratly Islands, started by China last year, have begun to reach completion, producing 1,500 acres of land in just in 2015. 

“[China’s] behavior threatens to set a new precedent whereby larger countries are free to intimidate smaller ones, and that provokes tensions, instability and can even lead to conflict,” Blinken said.

China's new security law will only amplify those concerns.

SEE ALSO: China is turning the tables on Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea dispute

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 facts that show how different China is from the rest of the world

Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) underwater recovery team is in Northern Vietnam searching for the remains of two naval aviators who are believed to have crashed into the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War.

Video courtesy of the US Navy

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) said Monday that real-estate developer Donald Trump should apologize for comments he made over the weekend — but not to him.

"I think he may owe an apology to the families of those who have sacrificed in conflict and those who have undergone the prison experience in serving our country," McCain said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

McCain was responding to Trump, a GOP presidential candidate who panned his war record over the weekend. Trump ignited a media firestorm by saying McCain was a war hero only because he was captured during the Vietnam War.

"He's not a war hero," Trump said Saturday while speaking at a forum in Iowa. "He is a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK? I hate to tell you ... I believe, perhaps, he's a war hero."

Almost every Republican running for president quickly condemned Trump's remarks and praised McCain as a true war hero. But McCain, whose fighter plane was shot down over Vietnam and who was held prisoner for more than five years, said the real heroes were some of his commanding officers.

"In the case of many of our veterans, when Mr. Trump said that he prefers to be with people who are not captured, well, the great honor of my life was to serve in the company of heroes," McCain said. "I'm not a hero. But those who were my senior ranking officers … those that have inspired us to do things that we otherwise wouldn't have been capable of doing, those are the people that I think he owes an apology to."

Trump repeatedly refused to apologize and on Sunday argued that McCain began the feud by dismissing his supporters as "crazies."

"A week ago, I had thousands of people in Phoenix, Arizona, talking about the whole horrible situation with illegal immigration," Trump said on Fox News. "We had thousands and thousands of people. And he called them 'crazies.' He insulted them. He should apologize to them, by the way. He insulted them, and then I insulted back."

SEE ALSO: Donald Trump says John McCain should apologize instead of him

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the best look yet at the next big game starring Batman

Over the weekend, real-estate mogul and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said he did not like "losers," like US Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), in reference to McCain's 2008 presidential election loss to President Barack Obama.

"I never liked him after that, because I don't like losers," Trump said. 

He then dug into McCain's military career. Trump said the US Navy veteran imprisoned for nearly six years in Vietnam was not a "war hero." He quickly caveated that statement.

"He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured," Trump said.

Amid the backlash, Trump has accused the media of taking his remarks about McCain's military record out of context in an interview with NBC's "Today" show.

McCain has talked and written extensively about his service and his experience as a prisoner of war.

On October 26, 1967, then-US Navy Lieutenant Commander John McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Vietnam.

"I reacted automatically the moment I took the hit and saw my wing was gone. I radioed, 'I'm hit,' reached up, and pulled the ejection seat handle. I struck part of the airplane, breaking my left arm, my right arm in three places, and my right knee, and I was briefly knocked unconscious by the force of the ejection."

Writing in 2000 memoir "Faith Of My Fathers," this is how McCain describes the moment he became a prisoner of war for nearly six years. He continues:

"I landed in the middle of the lake (Truc Bach Lake), in the middle of the city, in the middle of the day. An escape attempt would have been challenging."

Wearing approximately 50 pounds of gear and not being able to use either of his broken arms to deploy his life vest, McCain sank to the bottom of the shallow lake. He managed to inflate his life vest by pulling the plastic toggle with his teeth and shot to the surface. Floating in the lake, McCain fell in and out of consciousness until a group of Vietnamese villagers pulled him out of the water.

"Several hundred Vietnamese gathered around me, shouting wildly, stripping my clothes off, spitting on me, kicking and striking me repeatedly. When they had finished removing my gear and clothes, I felt a sharp pain in my right knee. I looked down and saw that my right foot was resting next to my left knee, at a 90-degree angle ... Someone smashed a rifle butt into my shoulder, breaking it. Someone else stuck a bayonet in my ankle and groin."

Before the angry mob could do more harm, Vietnamese soldiers arrived and transported McCain to Hoa Lo, a French-built prison.

"As the massive steel doors loudly clanked shut behind me, I felt a deeper dread than I have ever felt since ... for the next few days I drifted in and out of consciousness. When awake, I was periodically taken to another room for interrogation. "

McCain was accused of being a war criminal and tortured until he shared classified military information in exchange for medical attention. As he refused to reveal more than his name, rank, and date of birth, his condition steadily worsened.

"For four days I was taken back and forth to different rooms. Unable to use my arms, I was fed twice a day by a guard. I vomited after the meals, unable to hold down anything but a little tea. I remember being desperately thirsty all the time, but I could drink only when the guard was present for my twice-daily feedings."

McCain, who was forced to lay in a puddle of his own vomit and other bodily wastes, became feverish and lost consciousness frequently and for longer periods of time. 

One day the camp officer, who the PO Ws called Bug and who McCain referred to as "a mean son of b----," entered his filthy cell to examine his injuries.

"Are you going to take me to the hospital? I asked.

"No," he replied. "It's too late."

"Take me to the hospital and I'll get well."

"It's too late," he repeated.

Hopeless, McCain assumed we would die and began mentally prepping himself of his approaching death; but a few hours later, Bug rushed into his cell and shouted: "Your father is a big admiral. Now we take you to the hospital."

"A couple of days later I found myself lying in a filthy room about twenty by twenty feet, lousy with mosquitoes and rats. Every time it rained, an inch of mud and water would pool on the floor ... I received no treatment for my injuries. No one even bothered to wash the grime off me."

Meanwhile, McCain's interrogators continued to pressure him for more information and threatened to terminate his medical treatment if he did not cooperate.

"I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron. When asked to identify future targets, I simply recited the names of a number of North Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed."

Since McCain could not feed himself, a young boy was assigned to feeding him. The boy forced three spoonfuls of food down McCain's throat twice a day. There were usually leftovers, which the boy helped himself to in front of McCain.

Two months into his captivity, McCain underwent an operation on his leg.

"The Vietnamese filmed the operation, I haven't a clue why. Regrettably, the operation wasn't much of a success. The doctors severed all the ligaments on one side of my knee, which has never fully recovered."

Shortly after his surgery, McCain was moved into a cell with two other American Air Force POWs. They took care of each other and McCain notes that his condition improved.

The darkest moments of his capture occur when guards place him in solitary.

"It's an awful thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment."

A year later, several guards brought a resistant McCain to the camp commander in order to formally charge him of his war crimes.

"Knowing that I was in serious trouble and that nothing I did or said would make matters any worse, I replied: 'F--- you.'"

McCain was beat up, tied up for a night, and then dragged to an empty room for 4 days.

"At two-to-three intervals, the guards returned to administer beatings ... still I felt they were being careful not to kill or permanently injure me."

The worst beating came on the third night.

"I lay in my own blood and waste, so tired and hurt that I could not move...he slammed his fist into my face and knocked me across the room towards the waste bucket. I fell on the bucket, hitting it with my left arm, and breaking it again. They left me lying on the floor, moaning from the stabbing pain in my refractured arm."

It was after this night, that McCain tried to commit suicide twice. He was stopped by the guards and received more beatings. Shortly after, he confessed to whatever war crimes he was accused of and was left alone in his cell for 2 weeks.

"They were the worst two weeks of my life ... I was ashamed ... I shook, as if my disgrace were a fever."

This was 2 years into McCain's almost 6 year imprisonment. He was released as a POW in March of 1973.

These book excerpts are from John McCain's memoir "Faith Of My Fathers." 

SEE ALSO: John McCain: The Brutal CIA Interrogations 'Stained Our National Honor'

Join the conversation about this story »

The American experience in Vietnam was a long and painful one for the nation.

For those against the war, it appeared to be a meat grinder for draftees, unfairly targeting the poor, the uneducated, and minorities.

For those in favor of the war and those who served in the military at the time, the American public and media were (and still are) misled about what happened during the war and so feel betrayed by many at home (Jane Fonda is the enduring symbol of the cultural schism).

The facts not in dispute by either side are just as harrowing: Over 20 years, more than 58,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam and more than 150,000 wounded, not to mention the emotional toll the war took on American culture.

The war ended the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and left a lasting impression on Richard Nixon’s. It was the backbone to the most tumultuous period in American history since before the Civil War one century prior.

The other facts are not so clear. We are at the fifty year mark for the start of the war, so soon more and more government documents from the period will be declassified. We will learn a great deal about this time in American history. Right now, however, the misinformation, cover-ups, and confusion about Vietnam still pervade our national consciousness. Right now, we can only look back at the war and take stock of what we know was real and what was B.S. from day one.

1. The U.S. first got involved in Vietnam in 1954

Sort of. The official line is the United States sent only supplies and advisors before 1965. Looking back before the fall of French Indochina, Vietnam’s colonial name, the end of World War II saw a briefly independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam under President Ho Chi Minh. Minh even gave a nod to the visiting American OSS agents by paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence in his own Independence speech: “All men are created equal. The Creator has given us certain inviolable rights, the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness.”

Almost as soon as Minh realized the Western allies were going to restore French rule, Chinese advisors and Soviet equipment began to flow to North Vietnamese guerillas. After the Vietnamese Gen. Võ Nguyên Giáp handed the French their asses at Dien Bien Phu, the French left and Vietnam would be split in two. In 1954, an insurgency sprang up, but was quelled by the government of the new South Vietnam, led by Ngô Dình Diem. Unfortunately Diem was as dictatorial as Ho Chi Minh and as Catholic as the Spanish Inquisition.

2. U.S. and South Vietnamese Presidents were shot in 1963, and this would be significant

They were also both Catholic, but that’s where the similarities end. This also may be the death of coherent containment strategy in the country. Diem was shot in an armored personnel carrier on November 2, 1963. At the time, there were 16,000 U.S. advisors in Vietnam. President Kennedy was said to be shocked at the news. Then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said he “had never seen the President more upset.” Both men knew the U.S. government was responsible “to some degree.”

The Pentagon Papers leak explicitly stated the U.S. clandestinely maintained contact with Diem over-throwers and the U.S. government gave the generals in Vietnam the green light to start planning a coup. Twenty days later, Kennedy would himself be shot in the back of a vehicle.

3. Kennedy wanted to get the U.S. military out of Vietnam but couldn’t figure out how

President Kennedy was a fervent believer in the policy of containment and believed in the Domino Theory, but not so much as to wage unending war with the Communists in Vietnam. During his Presidency, he and McNamara actively pursued a way to leave Vietnam, while still maintaining their commitment to a free South through financial support and training. Kennedy wanted all U.S. personnel out by the end of 1965.

Many people refute this theory using a quote Kennedy gave Walter Cronkite: “These people who say we ought to withdraw from Vietnam are totally wrong, because if we withdrew from Vietnam, the communists would control… all of Southeast Asia… then India, Burma would be next.” The only problem with this quote is while Kennedy was in office, there was no open warfare in Vietnam and U.S. involvement was limited. Their strategy was to bring the North to heel using strategic bombing and limited ground attacks. Recordings between Kennedy and McNamara were since released to attest to their efforts in getting out of Vietnam.

4. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident only sort of happened.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the catalyst for the escalation of American action in Vietnam. It refers to two incidents in August 1964. On August 2, the destroyer USS Maddox was shelled by NVA torpedo boats. The Maddox responded by firing over 280 rounds in return. There was no official response from the Johnson Administration.

The pressure mounted however, with members of the military, both in and out of uniform, implying Johnson was a coward. On August 4th the second incident was said to have happened, but Secretary McNamara admitted in Errol Morris’ 2003 documentary The Fog of War the second attack never occurred. The Pentagon Papers even implied the Maddox fired first in an effort to keep the Communists a certain distance away.

SEE ALSO: Here's how the US military's uniforms have changed over the past 250 years

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Stunning video captures Vietnam like you've never seen it before

This week, twelve trade ministers meet in Hawaii to try to complete negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

If they succeed, there will be substantial benefits for their nations and a big diplomatic win for the Obama administration. If they fail, the accord risks getting bogged down in U.S. presidential politics and puts into question the re-balance to Asia.

The Obama administration’s policy of “rebalance” toward Asia has been designed to achieve two objectives: to embed the United States more deeply in the world’s most dynamic economic region, and to prevent a regional vacuum to be filled predominantly by China as it continues its rise.

The rebalance has rested on three pillars: political, security, and economic.

The administration has tangible achievements to show in the political and security domains: strengthening of alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines; normalization of relations with Myanmar; joining of the East Asia Summit, which the U.S. president attends each year; annual presidential meetings with the leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the opening of an embassy accredited to ASEAN in Jakarta; relaxation of the arms embargo on Vietnam; expansion of counter-terrorist cooperation with Indonesia; a Strategic and Economic Dialogue and frequent presidential summits with China; and heightened attention to the South China Sea.

But the economic component that should be driving U.S. engagement has had few specific accomplishments. The Korea-U.S. free trade agreement stands out, but in isolation. The U.S.-China negotiation on a bilateral investment treaty is on a very slow track because of Chinese reluctance to further open up its economy.

The Export-Import Bank’s future is tied up in ideological wars in the Republican Congressional Caucus. Reform of the International Monetary Fund has been blocked by the U.S. House of Representatives. Chinese initiatives such as the establishment of an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and a “Silk Road” investment project to build infrastructure in Eurasia have been met by sullen resistance and a lack of positive alternatives by the United States.

In this context, passage of TPP is vital if the rebalance is to be seen by states in the region as being economically relevant. To impress a region that prizes economic growth and openness, the stakes in TPP therefore are high for the administration.

The benefits of TPP

Currently, there are 12 countries negotiating the TPP. The full details have not yet been agreed on or disclosed. But economists have made plausible estimates of what benefits an agreement would likely yield.

In this kind of trade agreement, the big absolute gains go to large economies, especially ones that still have significant protection. Thus, the United States stands to gain $77 billion annually, while Japan's benefit is an even larger $105 billion. The big winner relative to the size of its economy is Vietnam, which could gain more than 10 percent of gross domestic product; followed closely by Malaysia, gaining about 6 percent.

These are static estimates. If joining TPP ushers in additional reforms in Vietnam that attract more investment and productivity growth, the gains could be much larger. Still the overall gains to the TPP-12 are modest and should not be exaggerated.

The long-term effect of TPP will depend on how other countries in the Asia-Pacific region react to it. China is the biggest loser from the current version of TPP. Its estimated losses are similar to Vietnam’s gains, which makes sense because the losses come from trade diversion away from China to Vietnam and other developing countries.

China’s economy is many times larger than Vietnam’s, however, so the losses are a tiny 0.2 percent of China’s economy. If more developing countries—especially large ones such as India, Indonesia, and Thailand—are attracted to join, then China’s losses from being left out will mount.

Most of the current TPP countries hope that China is eventually attracted to join. The benefits of any deep liberalization agreement that includes China will be many times greater than agreements without China. China may not want to join a pre-existing agreement, but that is not a big issue if it is serious about liberalizing to the standard of TPP. This could be done, for example, through a free-trade area of the Asia-Pacific whose benefits would be 6 to 7 times greater than those of the initial TPP agreement.

While things look promising for reaching a TPP agreement this week, it is still challenging to get it finalized before the U.S. presidential election takes full flight.

Under U.S. trade law and the recently passed Trade Promotion Authority legislation, there is an array of 60- and 90-day clocks during which the president must declare his intention to sign and publish the agreement and the Congress must vote on TPP-enabling legislation.

If, as the Obama administration hopes, negotiation among the parties is completed at the round of trade ministerial talks in Hawaii this week, the most optimistic scenario would look like this:

• Notification to Congress in early August of President Obama’s intention to sign TPP, and publication of the TPP agreement in mid-September.
• If both of these events occur in those time frames, the president could sign the agreement at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders meeting in Manila on November 18 and 19.
• After President Obama signs, Congress must act through an up or down vote within 90 days, which would mean by mid-February.

Avoid the election 

The hope of President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership is to complete the process before the notional February deadline, indeed ideally in December or January.

The political imperative is to hold the vote before the February 1 Iowa caucus, so that TPP does not become an issue in the presidential campaign. Free trade agreements are unpopular with voters, especially in the Democratic Party. So passage could become complicated if there are delays.

A delayed vote would present a particular dilemma for Hillary Clinton, who advocated and pushed for TPP as Secretary of State but who as a presidential candidate has voiced opposition to passage of Trade Promotion Authority and by implication TPP.

She would seem to have a high interest in seeing this issue resolved before the caucus and primary season.

SEE ALSO: Companies are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbying for Obama's pacific trade deal

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The secret strategy samurai use to achieve laser-focus

Trade ministers from a dozen Pacific Rim nations failed to reach a deal on a new trade agreement that would cover nearly 40% of the global economy, US Trade Representative Michael Froman said Friday.

Froman, reading from a statement on behalf of all of the ministers, said the parties made significant progress and agreed to continue their discussions.

The countries haven't yet set a date for future talks. Froman said some issues were bilateral in nature, and some will involve groups.

"I feel very gratified about the progress that's been made, and I am confident that through our continued intensive engagement that we'll be able to tackle the remaining issues successfully," Froman said in response to a reporter's question about whether he was disappointed about the lack of a deal.

Japan's economic and fiscal policy minister, Akira Amari, said he thought a deal would be reached with one more meeting.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are aimed at erasing most tariffs and other barriers to trade and investment among participants. It would also clarify and standardize trade rules, making it easier for companies to sell goods and services in the Pacific Rim.

The wide-ranging discussions have addressed tariffs on autos, rice, and dairy products, as well as intellectual-property protections for pharmaceuticals.

The talks have also covered establishing environmental protections for participant nations, which range from developing countries such as Vietnam to industrial powers such as Japan.

President Barack Obama's administration has said a pact would boost US economic growth and help keep high-quality jobs in the country by increasing exports.

The proposed deal is a central element of Obama's efforts to boost US influence in Asia and to serve as an economic counterweight to China.

Critics have complained that the deal is being negotiated in secret and that it favors multinational corporations over workers and consumers.

New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser said to reach a complicated trade agreement, parties must slowly resolve issues one by one until only one or two of the most difficult questions remain. He said dairy — of which New Zealand is a major exporter — is one of these difficult issues.

Groser didn't provide details, in an effort to avoid causing problems for his negotiating partners, but said the countries have agreed to what he called "commercially meaningful access." The definition of what that means is being negotiated, he said.

"I'm extremely confident that we will find that sweet spot and advance the interests of efficient dairy exporters around the world, not just mine, and yet find a way of dealing with the political complexities for those of our friends around the table who are less competitive," Groser said. 

Asked how the countries could address falling expectations for a deal, Amari said they should quickly reach an agreement.

He argued a pact by the 12 nations would become the standard for the Asia-Pacific region.

"There are countries already waiting to join. Their numbers will grow. With the World Trade Organization stuck, TPP may become the standard for the world,"Amari said.

The ministers held their latest round of negotiations at a hotel on Maui's Kaanapali Beach for four days this week.

The US came to Maui strengthened by the Obama administration's successful legislative fight winning fast-track negotiating authority. This allows Congress to approve or reject trade agreements, but not change or delay them.

The agreement was proposed by Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2002, but Washington has taken the lead in promoting it since joining the talks in 2008.

Participants include the US, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

China, the world's second-largest economy after the US, is not part of the talks. But there's potential it could join the pact later.

Beijing has been negotiating a separate agreement with many of the same nations that's called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. This pact would cover 16 countries, including the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as well as Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand.

SEE ALSO: The lynch pin of Obama's Asia pivot is about to succeed or fail

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Obama talk about a hypothetical third term: ‘I could win'

1. The Green Beret founder of Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training used a math problem to trick the Viet Cong. 

In the grand scheme of things, the Vietnam War tends to get the short end of the stick when it comes to great stories of war — maybe it’s too recent or painful an event to be remembered with the nostalgia associated with World War II.

Regardless, the story of James Nicholas “Nick” Rowe is one that deserves a spot in the limelight, and it might be one you haven’t heard before.

Not only was Rowe a Green Beret during Vietnam, he would also create the Army SERE course, a grueling training course that teaches methods of “survival, evasion, resistance, and escape” for when soldiers are captured by the enemy.

One of the training’s more notorious tasks is learning how to drink snake blood to keep up your calorie intake, so it’s safe to say Rowe was a pretty hardcore guy.

But even the best of the best can get caught by surprise. 

While on a mission supporting South Vietnamese irregulars against the Viet Cong, Rowe and his fellow Green Berets walked into an ambush. The men fought valiantly, but after exchanging fire they were overpowered and taken as prisoners. When they reached the POW camp they were separated and locked in cages, entering a living hell that they would endure for the next five years.

It only got worse for Rowe. The Viet Cong knew he was the leader of his unit, and suspected he had information. They were right. Rowe served as the captured unit’s intelligence officer, and possessed exactly the kind of information the Viet Cong desperately needed.

As a result, Rowe had to endure near-constant torture, on top of the already deplorable conditions of the prison. At one point Rowe confessed his “true” position, claiming he was just an engineer, but the VC weren’t going to let him off easy.

They cut the torture to give Rowe engineering problems to solve. Amazingly, despite the fact that he was starving, living in a cage and was not an engineer, he completed it correctly. His torturers were satisfied, and Rowe thought he could rest easy thanks to West Point’s mandatory engineering courses.

He was wrong. Around the same time, a group of American peace activists were on a mission to visit American officers in Vietnamese prisoner of war camps. The goal of the excursion was a little fuzzy, but they essentially wanted to prove that the North Vietnamese’s prison methods were above board. Rowe’s name was on their list of officers to visit, along with the fact that he was a Special Forces intelligence officer.

When the Viet Cong discovered the lie, they forced Rowe to stand naked in a swamp for days on end, leaving him ravaged by mosquitos and dizzy with lack of food or water. They were fed up with this phony engineer and his multiple escape attempts, and decided enough was enough. They gave Rowe an execution date, eager to rid themselves of his antics.

When the day finally came, Rowe was led far away from the camp, when suddenly a group of American helicopters thundered overhead, rustling the jungle trees and giving Rowe the split second of time he needed to break free, fend off his captors and sprint after the helicopters. Amazingly, one of the choppers noticed Rowe waving like a maniac in a clearing, and was able to rescue him from his scheduled death.

2. The British soldier who escaped The Gestapo’s “unescapable” castle

Escaping a prisoner of war camp is no easy feat, and many who have made it to freedom recount plotting their escape plans for months, even years, to execute it right on the first try.

This, apparently, was not Airey Neave’s style. Instead of biding his time, the British soldier escaped from World War II POW camps whenever he could, undeterred by failed attempts.

Finally, when he and his friend were caught in Poland after escaping German POW camp Stalag XX-A, he was collected by the Gestapo, who sent him to Oflag IV-C, AKA the Castle of Colditz — AKA the last stop for all troublemaking POWs.

It may look like a summer home fit for the Von Trapp family, but this place was no joke. If you’re doubtful you can read up on some accounts of the “escape proof” castle here.

The castle’s prisoners weren’t as confident in its “inescapable” qualities and instead just came up with ridiculously complex plans of escape.

Unsuccessful attempts involved the construction of a small wooden glider, a network of underground tunnels, and prisoners sewing themselves into mattresses to be smuggled out with the laundry. Tempting as these flashy failures were, Neave decided to take a more theatrical approach to his escape.

After he secretly acquired pieces of a Polish army uniform, he painted the shirt and cap green to resemble a German officer’s ensemble. Then he put on his new duds and strolled out of the prison like a Nazi on his way to Sunday dinner with his girl. What he didn’t anticipate, however, was how reflective the paint would be; once outside, he lit up like a Christmas tree under the guard’s searchlight passed over him. It didn’t end well.

But Neave still thought the idea was pretty awesome, and pulled the stunt a second time a few months later, with an updated “uniform” of cardboard, cloth, and more Nazi-green. He also had a partner in crime this time, another prisoner named Anthony Luteyn, who was also sporting a mock German getup.

During an all-inmate stage production that the prison sponsored and put on, Neave and Lutyen quietly slipped off stage, crawled underneath the floorboards that held the dancing inmates and were right above the guards' headquarters.

From there the pair dropped into the room from the ceiling and acted natural, strolling about and exchanging pleasantries in German as if they were simply visiting officers. Once they had ensured no one was suspicious, they calmly made their exit.

Once outside of the prison, they threw away the homemade German uniforms and pretended to be two Dutch workers on their way to Ulm from Leipzeg, with (fake) papers to prove it. Unfortunately, the phony documents ended up getting the two stopped by German police, but they bought the disguises and sent them to the foreign aid office, believing they were just confused immigrants.

Despite this and other close calls, Neave and Lutven continued their journey — all on foot — until they made it to Switzerland, where they were finally free. Neaves would later work to ensure there were quality escape lines for other POWS in Europe, and would also serve on the Nuremberg Trials.

3. The three-prong tunnel system that led 3 POWs to safety

The tunnels, nicknamed “Tom”, “Dick”, and “Harry,” were each 30 feet deep. This way, Bushell hoped, they wouldn’t be detected by the camp’s perimeter microphones. Each tunnel was also only about two feet wide, though there were larger sections that contained an air pump and a space full of digging supplies. Pieces of wood were used to ensure the stability of the tunnel walls.

Electric lighting was installed and attached to the prison’s electric grid, allowing the diggers to work and travel by lamplight 10 yards under the ground’s surface. The operation even advanced far enough to incorporate a rail car system into their tunnel network, which was used to carry tons and tons of building materials back and forth during the 5-month construction period.

Just as the “Harry” tunnel was completed in 1944, the American officers who had toiled over the escape route were moved to a new camp. The rest of the prisoners attempted an escape about a week later on March 24, but they had unfortunately miscalculated where their tunnels would end.

Initially believing the secret tunnel would dump them inside a forest, they emerged to realize that they were short of the tree line and completely exposed. Still, over 70 men crawled through the dark, dank tunnels to the other side, rushing to the trees once they surfaced. Tragically, on March 25th, a German guard spotted the 77th man crawling out of the tunnel, leading to the capture of 73 of the men, and later the execution of 50 of them.

Only three would survive and make it to freedom, but the escape had gone down as one of the most elaborate in history.

4. Bill Goldfinch and Jack Best’s plan to fly the Colditz coop

You didn’t really think we were going to just breeze by that wooden glider story, did you?

There have been plenty of wacky escape methods, but none as bold or sophisticated as literally building yourself a two-man wooden plane.

At least, this was the plan. Jack Best and Bill Goldfinch were similar to Neave in their can-do, slightly certifiable approach to escape. The men were pilots, and decided that the best way to bust out of the German castle was to do what they did best: fly. Or, more accurately in this case, glide. The Colditz castle was built atop a large cliff, perfect for launching a secret and probably highly unstable aircraft.

Goldfinch and Best began building the glider’s skeleton in the attic above the prison chapel, figuring the height would give it enough time to glide across the Mulde river, which was situated about 200 feet below the building.

To keep the Germans from walking in on the construction, the pair built a false wall out of old pieces of wood, the same stuff they constructed the glider out of. The plane was mostly made up out of bed slats and floor boards, but the men used whatever material they could get their hands on that they thought the Germans wouldn’t miss. Control wires were going to be created from electrical wiring that was found in quieter sections of the castle.

Though the operation was deemed moot before it could ever be carried out (the Axis released the prisoners before it could be flown), we felt this almost-escape deserved some recognition because by many accounts, it would have worked. In 2000, a replica of the Colditz glider was constructed for a documentary entitled “Escape from Colditz”, and was actually flown successfully at RAF Odiham.

It gets even cooler, though. Best and Goldfinch were able to watch the whole thing go down, and witness their “escape” firsthand.

SEE ALSO: '107 feet of fire-breathing titanium:' A US Air Force major describes flying the fastest plane in history

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We went inside a secret basement under Grand Central that was one of the biggest World War II targets

HANOI (Reuters) - Soldier-turned-tycoon Nguyen Huu Duong is a fierce patriot still fighting to protect his country, four decades after battling American forces in the Vietnam War.

The construction mogul has amassed a war chest of tens of millions of dollars to fight for greater independence for Vietnam's economy and counter an invasion of a different kind: Chinese goods.

Rapid growth in Vietnam is masking a chronically ill small-business sector that the rags-to-riches entrepreneur says is suffocated by a multi-billion dollar influx of cheap, mass-produced goods from China, under-cutting domestically produced items.

Duong has a rescue plan he says isn't a swipe at China, but a nurturing of startups, enticing them with free 50-year leases in his Hanoi mall "V+" - if they sell only Vietnamese-made products.

He is lobbying the government to introduce the model nationwide to stem the closures of tens of thousands of businesses each year and encourage customers to go local.

"China exports to the world at very, very low prices and that's put huge pressure on the Vietnamese economy and production," Duong told Reuters.

"I'm a businessman, I understand why firms can't develop. Without this kind of thing, Vietnamese businesses will perish."

Vietnam's dependence on its giant neighbor and biggest trade partner is resented by a population embittered by a history of perceived bullying and territorial incursions.

Relations soured in 2014 when Beijing started oil drilling in disputed waters, triggering the kind of nationalist rage that puts Vietnam's rulers in a tricky spot. A strong rebuke might satisfy the public and party progressives, but could anger a neighbor capable of holding its economy hostage.

Three-quarters of their annual $60 billion trade is made up of Vietnamese imports from China and many experts consider that understated. That flow barely registers in China, worth just 0.65 percent of its $2.3 trillion in exports in 2014.

The yuan devaluation has triggered domestic fears of China flooding Vietnam with even cheaper goods, forcing its central bank to go on the defensive by devaluing its dong currency and widen its trading band twice in six days.

Rescue mission

Former rickshaw driver Duong, 61, knows hard times and having prospered from his Hoa Binh brewery and construction empire, he has vowed to spend half of his fortune helping Vietnam build a small-business bedrock.

Dubbed "Duong Beer", he says he spent $27 million on the V+ mall, which opened in February. It reduces overheads to slash prices and sells everything from handbags and shoes to nuts and ornaments. Its supermarket undercuts foreign rivals like Big C and the first V+ shop has just opened on a Hanoi street, selling baguettes with omelettes and pate.

"Prices are good, quality is good. This must be one of the cheapest places in Southeast Asia," said Duong.

Doan Duy Khuong, vice president of the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the trade imbalance "plagued policymakers and businesses" and stifled domestic competition.

Despite Vietnamese disdain for Chinese products, their prices make them unavoidable when businesses lack capital and household budgets are modest.

Sporadic calls for boycotts fail miserably.

Dominic Mellor, an economist at the Asian Development Bank, said the V+ concept showed good intentions but the government should educate firms and nurture those in its most competitive sectors.

"There needs to be a change in mindsets and reassessment of the government's role, with targeted business development support," he said.

"It needs to move away from blanket subsidies towards targeted subsidies for industries and businesses able to compete and integrate into the global value chain."

On a macro level, Vietnam's is maneuvering to wean its economy off China, cosying up to Japan, South Korea Europe and the United States and chasing free trade accords with more than 60 markets, including a Trans-Pacific Partnership covering a third of global trade.

Duong's mall is popular. Its first two floors are full and space being prepared on three others is booked. He says it's just a beginning.

"Vietnamese businesses are dying, we need to do something," he said. "We're a nation that defeated two superpowers. I don't want this to be a nation of laborers working for others."

(Additional reporting by Mai Nguyen and My Pham; Editing by Robert Birsel)

Join the conversation about this story »

With two 20mm cannons, a 40mm automatic grenade launcher, five .50-caliber machine guns, and two weapon pods that could carry either 70mm rocket launchers or 7.62mm miniguns, the armored ACH-47A Chinook could fly into the teeth of enemy resistance and fly back out as the only survivor.

The aircraft boasted overlapping fields of fire and 360-degree coverage.

Operating under the call sign "Guns-A-Go-Go," these behemoths were part of an experimental program during Vietnam to create heavy aerial gunships to support ground troops. Four CH-47s were turned into ACH-47As by adding 2,681 pounds of armor and improved engines to each bird.

The first three birds arrived in Vietnam in 1966, and they engaged in six months of operational testing. They were assigned to support the US Army's 1st Cavalry Division as well as a Royal Australian Task Force.

The Army Pictorial Service covered an early mission flown in support of the Australians in which the attack Chinooks were sent to destroy known enemy positions.

SEE ALSO: US-led airstrikes blew up a stadium filled with ISIS' explosives, weapons, and ammunition

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China has been upgrading its military and is now stronger than ever

Robert Kaplan, one of the foremost experts on China, stated “The South China Sea will be the 21st Century’s defining battleground.”

Unlike the Persian Gulf, which has widespread recognition due to its significance to oil, the South China Sea is shrouded in obscurity and rarely discussed.

Despite its crucial importance to geopolitics, little is known about this marginal sea surrounded by littoral nations vying for supremacy over it.

What is it?

The South China Sea is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and encompasses an area of 1.4 million square miles (3.5 million square kilometers).

The sea is a semi-closed area and extends from the Singapore Strait to the Taiwan Strait. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan encircle the sea.

This large swathe of sea is considered to be a great economic source of wealth (Fishery stocks and potential hydrocarbon reserves beneath the seabed) as well as vital to geopolitical strategy.

Why is it important?

With eight nations disputing about and vying for control of the maritime features and ultimately the entire sea, tensions are starting to spill over into potential conflict. The significance of the South China Sea is its potential for wealth as well as the strategic advantage it will bequest upon whomever controls it.

Unlike other seas, the South China Sea has three factors that make it one of the most important, if not the most, sea to watch and guaranteeing a major conflict to ensue in the next few decades.

The South China Sea has a wealth of resources from “fishery stocks that comprise the livelihood and diet of so many in the region.” It is believed to be “one of the most lucrative fishing areas in the world”. Whoever establishes sovereignty over the sea will control one of the largest fishery stocks in the world.

The vitality of such a source is important based on the staple diet of the region. With burgeoning populations in many of these nations, ensuring a constant food source is vital to stability and longevity for the countries of the region.

The discovery of large sources of oil and gas reserves under the seabed has only further enticed the surrounding littoral nations to intensify their claims for control of the sea. Chinese officials have estimated the oil reserves at one trillion US dollars. The Chinese Department of Geology claims that the amount of reserves in and around the island will exceed those of the OPEC nations such as Kuwait or even Iraq.

The potential for gas is even larger. If any nations manages to wrest control of the zone, energy independence as well as large revenue stream is guaranteed, which is a national security imperative for many nations in the area including China.

The control of the South China Sea is vital in projecting power to the Eurasian rimlands and eventually to the vast interiors. The sea also serves as a natural link/interface between the Indian and Pacific Oceans only furthering its appeal. This natural passageway between the two oceans creates what is known as “Malacca Dilemma”.

The Malacca Dilemma refers to the dependence of China and the other nations in the region on the Strait of Malacca both economically and geopolitically. The Strait of Malacca is analogous in importance to the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. One-third of all global trade transits through the strait as well as more than overwhelming majority of raw materials and energy needs for the economies of China and the region.

Due to the increased traffic over the years it has become a critical chokepoint. The inability of these nations to exert its influence on the waterway gives its military planners the ultimate apprehension.

Even though ISIS and the Middle East continue to be important, the world should start paying more attention and getting familiar with the South China Sea before the tensions and skirmishes turn into an all-out regional war.

SEE ALSO: The South China Sea will be the battleground of the future

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: China is ramping up its military with a show of force in and outside the country

French photographer Réhahn Croquevielle fell in love with the people of Vietnam during a mission trip there in 2007.

Four years later, he moved from France to the town of Hoi An.

Although Hoi An is Réhahn's base, he spends much of his time motorbiking across remote parts of the country and taking photos of landscapes and locals.

Réhahn strives to capture his subjects in their most "natural and random moments," so that viewers can imagine the story behind that person.

Keep scrolling to see the incredible photos from his most recent trip through northern Vietnam.

For more photos, check out his Facebook page.

SEE ALSO: A photographer traveled to Iceland and took these incredible photos of his trip

FOLLOW US: BI Travel is on Twitter!

Réhahn spent a total of 11 days in Vietnam traveling by motorbike to various small towns that are home to some of Vietnam's minorities. Here's a map of the places he visited.

These two sisters are part of the H'mong minority, one of the largest minority groups in the country.

The Hmong generally live in the north of country at high altitudes. Different kinds of H'mong people dress differently — Black H'mongs wear traditional indigo blue clothing, and Flower H'mongs wear more colorful dress.

NOW WATCH: 11 stunning aerial photos that will change the way you see the world

“This is my rifle; this is my gun. One is for pleasure; the other for fun . . .” As anyone who’s been there knows, a warfighter develops a pretty intimate relationship with his (or her) weapon while in theater. From the Revolutionary War through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these 7 rifles were the ones American troops depended on when the bullets started flying:

1. The Long Rifle

The American Long Rifle took longer to reload than a British musket, but it’s superior accuracy (due to a smaller and harder round) and longer range allowed the patriots to disburse themselves and take out the tightly-grouped Red Coats one-by-one while remaining beyond the enemy’s reach.

2. The Spencer Repeating Rifle

The Spencer gave the Union Army a significant tactical advantage during the Civil War with a firing rate of 20 rounds per minute compared to 2 to 3 rounds per minute of the Confederate’s muzzle loaders. Ironically the Department of War balked at having troops use the Spencer initially because they thought they’d waste too much ammo, but Christopher Spencer himself demo’d the rifle to President Lincoln and he subsequently ordered its introduction.

3. The Winchester

“The gun that won the west.” “Winchester” is a general term for a series of rifles, the most successful of which was the 1873 model, which was not used by the U.S. military. The 1895 model was, however, championed by none other than Theodore Roosevelt who was first introduced to the weapon during a big game hunting expedition.

4. The Springfield

The 1903 model of the Springfield rifle was derived from the version that contributed to the disaster at Little Big Horn because of it’s tendency to jam. The 1903 was a more reliable rifle and found its place with U.S. Army troops in the trenches of France during World War 1.

5. The M1

Patton called it “the greatest battle implement ever devised,” the M1 Garand was the U.S. military’s first standard issue semi-automatic rifle. The M1’s semiautomatic operation gave American forces a significant advantage in firepower and shot-to-shot recovery time over individual enemy infantrymen during both World War 2 and the Korean War.

6. The M16

Despite growing pains, mostly associated with jamming, early in it’s service life, the M16 eventually became a trusted rifle across all of the branches of service from the Vietnam War through Desert Storm until the present day. Total worldwide production of M16s has been approximately 8 million, making it the most-produced firearm of its 5.56 mm caliber.

7. The M4

The weapon of choice for most special operators since 9-11. The M4’s design was based on shortening the barrel length without compromising long-range accuracy, faster firing action, capability of setting a three-shot pattern, and basic versatility for additional equipment (flash suppressors, silencer, grenade launchers, etc.). All factors were geared for close combat and what the Pentagon describes as “fluid tactical situations.”

SEE ALSO: Here's how America's most secret, elite warrior units operate

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: See 240 years of US Army uniforms in 2 minutes