When it comes to security issues, the US and China are like a couple of boxers early in the bout, sparring and circling warily around the edge of the ring as they test each other.
From the US corner, a flurry of recent statements by US military leaders and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have highlighted three themes.
First, the US seeks to deter China from aggression and particularly to dissuade the Chinese from underestimating US power and intentions.
Second, US military leaders see China as a potential adversary, but assert that open conflict is not inevitable.
Third, China's military forces are not capable of defeating the US conventionally or by using nuclear weapons.
Thus, Gates concluded: "I do not see China at this point as a strategic adversary of the United States."
During a discussion with reporters in Washington, however, he said: "We are simply watching to see what they are doing."
For their part, the Chinese announced during the National People's Congress (NPC) that military spending would rise 18 percent this year to about US$45 billion.
Most analysts outside of China contend that actual Chinese spending is at least twice that because so much is hidden. Moreover, Chinese costs are relatively low, which means they can buy more military power for less money.
In speeches before the NPC National People's Congress, which has just concluded, the belligerent tone that marked past Chinese pronouncements was notably absent.
Most speeches, as reported on Chinese Web sites, were routine, with Chinese President Hu Jintao (
The chief of the general staff, General Liang Guanglie (
As for Taiwan, a senior officer from the missile force, Liu Qide, reiterated the party line, saying: "We must get ready to deal with it and be resolved to foil anyone's intrigue to secede Taiwan from China."
Retired US Admiral Dennis Blair, former head of the US Pacific Command, was critical, as other US military leaders have been, of China's penchant for secrecy.
"The Chinese have been weak for so long that they have adopted the traditional tactic of the weak -- hide what you are doing so you don't expose weakness and others may think you are stronger than you are," he has said.
Interviewed by the staff of the Washington office of the East-West Center, a research and educational institute in Honolulu, Hawaii, Blair said: "It is not to China's advantage to hide its capabilities. In fact, the Chinese are scaring people by hiding their capabilities. China's neighbors and some in the US suspect that it has aggressive, very powerful military designs."
"The Chinese must be willing to show their neighbors and the United States that their military program makes sense from a point of view of defending the nation's interests," he said. "They must be willing to make clear that their military program is not designed to give China a capability for aggression toward its neighbors."
Similarly, Admiral William Fallon, who has just left the US Pacific Command in Hawaii to take over the Central Command that is responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in his final report to the US Congress that the objective of Sino-US exchanges was "to increase transparency between our respective militaries."
Further, he said such military exchanges, which were gradually expanded during his watch at Pacific Command, were intended "to break down barriers to understanding and reduce the potential for miscalculation."
Admiral Timothy Keating, who is scheduled to replace Fallon later this month, told a congressional committee that he planned to continue "a series of robust engagements with, principally, the People's Liberation Army."
Referring to the friction between China and Taiwan, Keating said: "If we deal with some frequency at several levels with the Chinese, if we exercise with them -- all services -- if we ensure they are aware of our capabilities and our intent, I think we will go a long way to defusing potential strife across the Strait of Taiwan."
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, told newsmen in the same discussion with Gates that deterrence has two elements, capability and intent.
He said the US must be ensure it has the military power to handle a threat "so that our potential adversaries don't miscalculate our capacities."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS