US military report damages ties

08:25, August 30, 2010      
Email | Print | Subscribe | Comments | Forum 
Increases the bookmark
twitterfacebook
diggGoogle
WindowsliveDelicious
buzzfriendfeed
Linkedindiigo
redditstumbleupon
Outdated Cold-War thinking is creating tension in the Asia Pacific and threatening normal exchanges
On Aug 16, the United States Department of Defense (DOD) issued its annual report on China's military power. As required by Section 1201 and 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, a report on the development of Chinese military power needs to be submitted to four US Congress committees every year.
According to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, this year's report has been renamed the "2010 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China". The change aims to reduce DOD workload by merging similar reports to the US Congress.
Compared with previous ones, the latest report has very few changes in content but the tone is less harsh. Apart from giving positive evaluations of China's contribution to peacekeeping, humanitarian, disaster relief and counter-piracy operations, the report also stressed the importance of a stable bilateral military relation with China.
However, the 2010 report has evoked protests from China's Ministry of National Defense and Foreign Ministry.
So, why does China oppose the report?
First, the US Congress had requested the DOD annual report at a time when Sino-US relations were in bad shape. The Cox Report, issued by Congress in 1999, accused China of spying and stealing US military technology. Sino-US relations suffered a setback after US combat aircraft bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In an atmosphere hostile to China, Congress passed the act that has hindered Sino-US military exchanges and cooperation.
Eleven years after the act was passed, bilateral ties between China and the US have seen all-round development. Facts have proven time and again that long-term and stable relations cannot be separated from healthy and stable military relations, for which this act has always been a stumbling block. It requires an annual review of Chinese military power and the military balance across the Taiwan Straits, detailed examination of military to military exchanges, report of all the topics discussed and all the questions posed by People's Liberation Army (PLA) delegations visiting the US, and above all, restricted military to military exchanges in 12 areas. With legal requirements like these, how can China see any friendly attitude, any prospect for real cooperation, or even any wish to promote mutual trust? Besides, it is unfair to subject military ties between two equal countries to legal restrictions that are imposed and interpreted by one of them.
Second, the assessment of the military balance cross the Taiwan Straits is a rather important part of the report. China has opposed any external interference in its internal affairs, for it believes Chinese on both sides of the Straits have the ability and wisdom to solve their own problems.
In recent years, a repeated theme in the report is that the military power balance has already leaned (and will continue to lean) toward the mainland. When cross-Straits relations are improving, the DOD report continues to stress the possibility of military conflict. One cannot help getting the impression that the US is seeking excuses to sell more arms to Taiwan.
The recent report expresses dissatisfaction over China's suspension of military exchanges, stating that arms sales to Taiwan is a long-held policy which the US will continue to adopt. The underlying logic seems to be: Why cannot China get used to US selling arms to Taiwan, for it has been doing it for more than 30 years? Does the US really think it can make a virtue out of a wrongdoing simply by doing it for 30 years? And that the victim should be expected to accept it?
The DOD report analyzes subjects such as the security situation in the Taiwan Straits, the Chinese PLA's size and capabilities, the development of operational doctrine, the advanced technologies the PLA has acquired or developed to boost its capabilities, its foreign military contacts and so on. In the analysis, accusations against China and its military abound. One of them is that China's rapid economic growth has helped to resource and finance the modernization of the military, but there exist uncertainties that "could divert China from a peaceful pathway", so the US must keep an eye on the development of the PLA's capabilities. The strong ideological overtone in the report reflects the deep-rooted doubts held by the US over the PLA, fundamentally affecting the development of Sino-US military relations.
Another frequent accusation is lack of transparency. In fact, China has made its military affairs more transparent by issuing biannual Defense White Papers, releasing information regularly through the Defense Ministry's information office and holding news conferences. Military transparency will continue to increase as a result of deepening reform, but not as a result of external pressure.
The report alleges that China's military development will affect the balance, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, or even the global military balance of power. The PLA justifiably opposes the deliberately slanted "China military threat" theory. As a country with a vast territory and diversified security requirements, China has to develop its military to meet its security needs. Any sovereign country has the right to enhance its defense and the Chinese military takes it as its responsibility.
The report also says the PLA's capabilities could provide it with "a force capable of conducting any range of military operations in Asia well beyond Taiwan". What is more, it alleges that since the PLA could operate with "anti-access" and "area-denial" capabilities in the Western Pacific, beyond the first "island chain", it poses a threat to the US.
"Anti-access" capabilities aim at "access control". A fundamental question is: What kind of a scenario does the US have in mind when it talks about "access assurance" within the first and second island chains? It is known that the US had made an ambiguous defense commitment to Taiwan. As long as that commitment exists, whatever capabilities the PLA develops cannot be considered as "beyond Taiwan".
To sum up, issuing an annual report on the Chinese military is an outdated practice that is detrimental to mutual understanding and trust, to sustained and reliable military to military relations and to the overall Sino-US strategic relationship. The Chinese government, the PLA and the Chinese people will continue to protest such a report.
The author is a major general and senior researcher at the Academy of Military Science of the PLA.
Source: China DailyMajor headlines
National image video aims to show world true China
China's top political advisor watches Peking Opera classic
Yangtze River now world's busiest shipping river
Chinese top legislature launches law enforcement inspection to promote agricultural techniques
Chinese, Thai defense ministers vow to boost exchanges
Chinese-Japanese trade, economic ties endure financial crisis, says Chinese PM
Forum to boost China-Japan ties
Senior Chinese leader calls for further reform, innovation in cultural system
Hot Forum Dicussion
Is S China Sea US's another strategic weight to contain China?
Protecting domestic strategic materials reasonable and fair
China's last door-to-door census?
What if China bans grain exports?
Sino-US tussle nothing but a dead end
Reform cultural system, lift China's soft power
China seized India maps at Expo?