Testing time for US arms report on China
By Peter J Brown
With the release in mid-August of the United States Department of Defense's
latest assessment of China's military, "2010 Annual Report to Congress on
Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China",
the US has provided the world with sobering news about China's military buildup
and modernization. [1]
"China has been increasingly effective at translating its increasing economic
strength into military capabilities," said a senior defense department official
during a background briefing on the report. "Yet at the same time, the lack of
transparency
surrounding China’s growing capabilities and its intentions has raised certain
questions about Chinese investments in the military and security sphere." [2]
China's reaction in general was characterized by widespread agreement that the
tone and content of the Pentagon's report was quite negative.
"Other than limited credit given to the Chinese military's overseas
peacekeeping efforts and humanitarian assistance, the annual report is making
vague accusations over China's military power, growth and intentions," declared
the Global Times. "The report calls for sustained and reliable US-China
military-to-military relations. Yet, given the recent US military activities
surrounding China's Yellow Sea and the South China Sea, including the symbolic
presence of the aircraft carrier George Washington, has US military
shown willingness to build mutual trust? The report illustrates the Pentagon's
hostility against the Chinese defense sector. It also sent a confusing message
to the world about China's military role." [3]
The official Chinese reaction is no less irate. China described the assessment
as exaggerating and distorting China's military strength.
"We firmly oppose this report," said Jiang Yu, a spokesperson for China's
Foreign Ministry.
The US report also "ignored objective facts" and is "not beneficial to the
improvement and development of Sino-US military ties", said Geng Yansheng, a
Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman.
Contrast these opinions with the conclusion reached by Joan Johnson-Freese,
chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the US Naval War
College, for example, who depicts this report as further evidence that the more
positive rhetoric about US-China relations which can be detected at the
highest, strategic levels in both countries has yet to filter down to the
operational levels.
"The good news is the language of the report is less sensationalist than past
reports, with far less 'speculative' aspects - at least regarding space," said
Johnson-Freese. "On the other hand, that there is still a somewhat bipartisan,
anti-China mood in Washington, especially in congress - for a variety of
reasons, some substantive, some less so - is still reflected. Not surprising
due to timing with the upcoming elections."
Timing is everything. US President Barack Obama's popularity has fallen in
2010, and an important election looms that will determine who controls the US
Congress. Still, other experts see the timing of the release of the report
which is mandated by congress as insignificant - it was months overdue - and
there is also considerable disagreement about whether China or the US benefits
more from the release of this report.
"The issue of who benefits 'more' is not very relevant. China does not release
a great deal of information about its military capabilities to their public or
to the rest of the world. If it did, such a report would not be necessary,"
said Bonnie Glaser, a senior fellow with the Freeman Chair in China Studies at
the Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "As
for the timing, you can conjure up complex theories, but I attribute the delay
to bureaucracy. This is an interagency report that was carefully vetted. It is
not the highest priority - after all, we are fighting two wars. It sat under
various piles on people's desks for a long time."
Does this report address the concerns of two different and important factions
in the US simultaneously? After all, there are some who want to ensure that US
forces are able to deter or defeat China in the unlikely, but altogether
conceivable, event of an armed conflict; and others who want, despite the
recurring disruptions in bilateral military relations, to seek cooperation with
China. Some experts say that it does.
"The scope and seriousness of the threat posed by the modernizing People's
Liberation Army [PLA] is fully presented. But, to my surprise, the report then
also gives ample support to the importance of restoring a military
relationship," said retired US Navy rear admiral Eric McVadon, a senior adviser
in Asia-Pacific Studies at the Virginia-based Institute for Foreign Policy
Analysis. "As a result, the report truly embraces my conviction that, like it
or not, we have a relationship with China that demands we hedge militarily
while at the same time we pursue cooperation and try to build trust and
confidence."
McVadon also gives the team of authors high marks for their handling of the
complexity of the bilateral relationship, a factor of profound importance to
those Americans who think seriously about the global roles of the US and China.
Perhaps most importantly, the team presented China's military developments "in
a sufficiently encouraging and even positive light so that the potential for
cooperative efforts is not ruled out, which might serve the interests of both
countries."
"We might take some comfort in that even if Beijing predictably elects again
this year publicly to pan it," said McVadon. "It is also noteworthy that [the
authors] have not chosen to present a searing indictment of China and its armed
forces, although the report perpetuates the long-held US complaint about lack
of transparency which I consider largely bogus. We, indeed, wish they would
publish national strategy documents and White Papers that resemble those of
some other nations. But I think that Beijing and the PLA have, in recent years,
made altogether clear their intentions, strategy, and goals."
While McVadon does not see the approaching US elections as a factor in the
timing of the release of the report, he is, however, surprised it has been
issued amid the ongoing intense disruption of military-to-military relations
stemming from China's displeasure with the US over arms sales to Taiwan, the
joint South Korean and US navy exercises, and US Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's "alleged effort to rally Southeast Asian nations at the Hanoi ASEAN
gathering against China".
"The release could well have been delayed by uncertainty or disagreement at the
US Department of State and/or the Pentagon on how best to react to this latest
and most entrenched set of complaints by the Chinese," said McVadon, who
described China as "incensed" by the naval exercises and Clinton's actions in
Hanoi. "We may, thus, have wasted a potentially conciliatory gesture by firing
this almost-friendly round into a bit of an inferno. So, again, I am somewhat
surprised that the authors, first, took such a moderate posture in these tense
times and, then, released the report in the face of a likely Chinese rebuke."
In response, China once again repeated its claim that its military development
"is reasonable and appropriate, and is aimed to protect its national
sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, as well as keep apace with the
rapid military development in the world".
"We ask the US side to view China's national defense and military build-up from
an objective and just perspective, put an end to comments and conduct that
might compromise mutual trust between Chinese and US military forces, and stop
issuing the so-called Chinese military and security development report, so to
create a favorable environment for the improvement and development of Sino-US
military relations," said Geng.
This request will probably be ignored by the US. Glaser pointed that out at
this year's annual Asian military summit held in Singapore - the "Shangri-La
Dialogue" - where China waved off a visit to China by US Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates, among other things, Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief
of the PLA's general staff, cited the three obstacles to the full restoration
of US-China military exchanges - US arms sales to Taiwan, the unwelcome,
intrusive and intensive activities of US ships and aircraft in China's "near
seas", and the restrictions imposed the DeLay Amendment to the 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act. [4]
"Ceasing publication of this report was not one of them. The issuance of the
report will not have an appreciable impact on the mil-mil relationship," said
Glaser. "The Chinese have signaled that they want to resume high-level
exchanges and convene the Defense Consultative Talks and other bilateral
consultation mechanisms. They appear to be seeking a 'gesture' from the US
before proceeding, perhaps to save face and avoid excessive criticism
domestically."
McVadon sees this report as a sign that Washington is not just sitting and
awaiting a change of heart among the Chinese.
"I continue to hope that China's President Hu [Jintao] and Obama might declare
early next year that the mil-mil relationship should look past differences and
cease to be the first casualty when there is friction in relations," said
McVadon. "This report is not serving, in the near future, as a catalyst for a
positive development in relations, but on a positive note, it does not erect
any new barriers to improved relations."
On the other hand, Gregory Kulacki, senior analyst and China project manager at
the Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists, deems the report as not
at all useful or timely.
"No one benefits from the release of this report. Chinese observers found it
hostile, provocative and yet another indication that the US is pursuing a
policy of containment," said Kulacki. "US observers will find little new
information in the unclassified version of the report, which is produced every
year because of a decade-old mandate from congress, not because there is a
demonstrable need for an annual public report."
Looming US elections or not, the plain fact is that the average American does
not really care about whether the US and China are engaged in any meaningful
discussions.
"The Obama administration took more time preparing this year's report, which is
more comprehensive and objective than those issued in the past," said Kulacki.
"While a few US politicians, like [Republican] Senator [Jon] Kyl, have
attempted to make the report a political issue, US-China relations is not a
high priority for the American electorate, especially those voters most likely
to participate in the upcoming elections."
From China's perspective, the release comes after a period of intense US
diplomatic and military activity in East Asia that has deeply offended the
sovereign sensibilities of both the Chinese elite and the Chinese public - most
especially the participation of the US aircraft carrier USS George Washington
in military exercises off the Chinese coast close to Beijing.
"Because the Chinese perceive the report as a provocation, it is likely to
further inhibit renewed dialog between the two militaries," said Kulacki.
"While it is difficult to say whether the classified version of the report is
useful to congress, the annual production and release of a public report that
contains little new information is a pointless impediment to constructive
military-to-military relations that the administration and the congress should
consider eliminating."
In early May, just before the end of her long visit to the US as a fellow at
the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, PLA
Senior Colonel Yunzhu Yao was focused on the new US Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) which had emerged a few weeks earlier, and among other things, included
one glaring omission.
"The US would like China to contribute its share to strategic stability. Yet,
the issue of Taiwan, which presents a possible scenario for military conflict
between China and the US, is not mentioned at all in the NPR report," Yao said.
While the US openly frets about China's rapidly evolving anti-access strategy
reinforced by a new generation of anti-carrier missiles, China's growing
concern over US ballistic missile defense (BMD) and "prompt global strike"
capabilities "needs more than just dialogues and talks if it is to be
relieved," she said.
"If China is regarded as part of the 'newly emerged regional missile threat'
against which the US and its allies are setting up regional BMD architectures,
tension over the BMD is going to stay and loom larger than before," said Yao.
"[China] will be cautious in looking for indicators that Washington would back
reassuring words with a willingness to limit capabilities." [5]
Barely three months later, Taiwan is clearly a focal point of the new report.
Taiwan quickly seized the opportunity that this latest report provided and
began renewing its call for the US to immediately sell Taiwan more F-16 fighter
aircraft and other advanced weaponry. In this tense election year, Obama's
Republican opponents will certainly pounce if they detect the first sign of
reluctance from Obama to comply with Taiwan's urgent appeal.
"The sale of advanced weapons to Taiwan will only serve to escalate the pace of
military expenditures and deployments in the region, leading to increased
tensions not only between Taiwan, the mainland and the US, but between China
and other nations in the region who are concerned about China's military
buildup," said Kulacki. "An arms race in Asia would put a break on the region's
economic development, increasing tensions, disrupting trade and diverting
financial resources from the productive investments in new technologies that
have made Asia the center of the world economy."
Taiwan magnifies the anti-access dimension of the Chinese game plan which is
raised in the new report, and McVadon welcomed the report's depiction of
China's combination and sequencing of the prospective anti-ship ballistic
missile capability, the existing submarine-launched anti-ship cruise missile
threat, and the possibility of follow-on attacks by guided-missile destroyers
and maritime-interdiction aircraft. However, McVadon was disappointed by the
lack of emphasis on the extant Kilo-submarine threat, "because of the Kilo's
quietness, and, the range and capabilities of its submerged-launch, evasive,
supersonic-attack SS-N-27B/Sizzler missiles."
Secretary Gates, who is watching Taiwan carefully and has found himself
immersed in Asian matters, recently criticized congress for imposing so many
time-consuming reporting requirements, although he was probably not referring
to the annual requirement for a dossier on the PLA when he did so.
"China's legendary opacity makes a report essential, lest the general public
ignore the military dimensions of a rising China," said Patrick Cronin, senior
advisor and senior director of the Asia Program at the Washington, DC-based
Center for a New American Security. "While publicly declaring much of what we
know about China's strategies and its security forces, of course, provides the
Chinese with insights about our strengths and weaknesses in intelligence and
perception, this damage is more than offset by the benefits of providing a
relatively authoritative and balanced assessment of Chinese military forces and
plans."
Despite the fact that Cronin mentioned "a major cyber attack that appeared to
emanate from China, and further eroded security relations", he remained
optimistic that issuing the report in the dead of August will help the two
governments seek a restoration of military ties by the end of the year.
"China is gradually erecting a military juggernaut, and it will not simply be
satisfied with defending its strict territorial limits. Nor should we expect
the Chinese to suddenly begin sharing with us any operational plans for coping
with a meltdown in North Korea, territorial disputes in the South China Sea, or
even base access and dual-use arrangements in Asian and Central Asian
countries," said Cronin.
"But the Chinese are assisting with some international peacekeeping,
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and counter-piracy missions. And
they do share an interest in averting an overt arms race and potential
miscalculation. Within that space, this report provides a realistic context for
further engagement, an engagement bent on trying to foster greater cooperation
while being resigned, if necessary, to living with a higher degree of tension."
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
