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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS