An Asian friend, musing about the difficulties in communication between Asians and Americans, once observed: "You carry around a dictionary in your head and I carry around a dictionary in my head, but sometimes your dictionary and my dictionary don't say the same thing."
So it seems between the US and China, specifically between the Department of Defense and the People's Liberation Army (PLA). They can't seem to agree on the meaning of the admittedly awkward word "transparency."
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates brought it up last weekend at the annual Shangri-la conference in Singapore, contending: "This century's most vexing challenges will require a significant level of trust and transparency between nations that may have differing perspectives and histories."
"Distrust and secrecy can lead to miscalculation and unnecessary confrontation," Gates said.
"We are concerned about the opaqueness of Beijing's military spending and modernization programs -- issues described in the annual report on the Chinese armed forces recently released by the US government," he said.
A lack of transparency was a theme that ran through the Pentagon's Military Power of the People's Republic of China.
Gates expressed much the same view, although in less strident terms, as his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, in two previous Shangri-la conferences of top defense officials from Asia and the Pacific.
It must be said, however, that this emphasis on transparency seems a curious pronouncement from a Washington administration that has been more obsessed with secrecy than any in memory.
China, which earlier had sent low level delegations to the Shangri-la gathering, decided this year to be represented by a senior officer who spoke with authority, Lieutenant General Zhang Qinsheng (
"Due to differences in history, culture, social system and ideology, countries naturally disagree on what transparency means and how to achieve it. Nothing in this world is absolute. Transparency is a relative concept, too," he said.
"Anyhow," he said, "it is obvious to all that China is gradually making progress in military transparency." Last December, China published a "white paper" titled China's National Defense that laid out China's strategic objectives more clearly than had previous biennial reports.
"To build a powerful and fortified national defense," the report said, "is a strategic task of China's modernization drive."
It set timelines: To "lay a solid foundation" by 2010, "to make major progress by 2020," and to be able to win high-tech wars by mid-century.
Zhang did not refer to Sun Tzu (
"All warfare," the treatise says, "is based on deception."
In one passage, Sun Tzu became lyrical: "O subtlety and secrecy!"
Despite claims of transparency, Chinese military spending is opaque. The official figure for defense was US$36 billion last year, which Beijing has said would go up 17.8 percent this year.
Almost no one outside of China, however, believes the official figure because so much is hidden. The US Defense Intelligence Agency puts it between US$85 billion and US$125 billion. Other estimates go up to US$430 billion.
On the other hand, Zhang denounced the Pentagon's report on the PLA: "This report is unreliable ... It is not to be believed."
He said it reflected "a Cold War mindset" and "creates the so-called `China threat' theory in the international community."
Lastly, he claimed the report was detrimental to military relations between China and the US. He demanded that the US and Japan explain the missile defenses they plan to deploy.
"China is quite concerned about the intention of the United States and Japan," he said.
The Chinese delegation also wanted to know the intent of a budding defense initiative involving the US, Japan, Australia and India. Gates begged off, saying he was new on the job and not familiar with the plan.
Maybe more transparent communication is coming. In response to former US secretary of defense William Cohen, Zhang said a hot line between Beijing and Washington was about to be opened.
"In September this year," he said, "I will lead a delegation to the US and meet with the US military officials for the ninth time and at that time we will finalize the establishment of the hotline."
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS