US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chinese Minister of National Defense Dong Jun (董軍) on April 16 engaged in their first dialogue since 2022. During the videoconference, they delved into various topics, including US-China defense and regional issues, as well as global security, such as Russia’s war against Ukraine and the threat North Korea poses to world peace.
Austin emphasized the criticality of upholding freedom of navigation, implicitly addressing China’s assertive stance in the South China Sea. Furthermore, Austin reassured the Chinese side of the US’ commitment to its “one China” policy. However, he also affirmed that US military ships and aircraft would persist in their patrols and training exercises in international waters. This stance indicated the US’ resolve not to yield its exercise of freedom of navigation to People’s Liberation Army coercion.
Previously, China had declined to meet due to US sanctions imposed on former Chinese minister of national defense Li Shangfu (李尚福). Beijing also canceled all military-to-military talks in response to then-US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan on Aug. 2, 2022.
China has frequently utilized the granting of military dialogue as leverage, signaling its willingness to compromise on other matters. Regardless of whether compromise materializes, Beijing can maintain the moral high ground by showcasing its openness to discussions. Conversely, the US views these talks as an essential diplomatic tool to mitigate the risk of triggering a war. As a result, the US has advocated for and successfully arranged several high-level defense discussions, culminating in the latest dialogue between the two defense chiefs.
General Charles Brown, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, in December last year engaged in discussions with General Liu Zhenli (劉振立), chief of staff of China’s Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission. A month later, the US-People’s Republic of China Defense Policy Coordination Talks took place.
Austin and Dong are slated to participate in the upcoming Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore at the end of this month. This prestigious event draws defense chiefs from around the globe, offering opportunities for bilateral and multilateral discussions. Key topics on this year’s Shangri-La agenda include maritime security, deterrence in the Asia-Pacific region, cybersecurity, defense cooperation and avenues for a diplomatic resolution in the conflict in Myanmar.
Most analysts view continuous and transparent dialogue as a more effective means of maintaining peace compared with severing relations. Apart from deterring conflict, discussions between the US and China provide opportunities to identify areas of common interest, such as addressing the conflict in Myanmar, combating terrorism and conducting anti-piracy operations. However, Beijing’s support for the Burmese junta, as well as some of ethnic armed groups opposing it, complicates matters. This dynamic makes it improbable for the US and China to reconcile their Myanmar policies sufficiently to reach a consensus.
The two nations’ counterterrorism approaches also greatly differ. Beijing’s backing of Iran, the primary state supporter of terrorist factions such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, stands in stark contrast to the US stance.
Regarding anti-piracy efforts, while China is open to collaboration against Somalian pirates, it has struck its own deals with the Houthis. These agreements ensure safe passage for Chinese vessels while allowing attacks on ships from other nations. Thus, even apparent shared interests lack true common ground.
Critics contend that entering into discussions with a rival military can inadvertently legitimize the actions of that government, even if they are perceived negatively. With each round of defense talks between the US and China, China’s online 50 Cent Army ramps up its efforts, portraying the US as submissive and eager for negotiations, while casting Beijing as powerful and generous for agreeing to them.
The day following the meeting with Austin, Dong was reported in the Global Times as stating: “The US should recognize China’s firm stance, respect China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea, and take practical actions to maintain regional peace and stability, and the stability of China-US military relations.”
This statement essentially reaffirms that the Chinese side remains steadfast, unwilling to compromise or yield. China seeks acceptance of its actions and territorial claims from the US and the international community, without opposition.
Austin and numerous other US officials’ continual reassurance to their Chinese counterparts regarding the US commitment to its “one China” policy is viewed by some as a form of appeasement. Another criticism is the lack of tangible outcomes from the talks. This is evident in the recurring topics of discussion with Beijing — China’s aggression toward Taiwan and the Philippines, its attempts to curtail freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, its ongoing support for Russia in Ukraine and its cyberattacks on the US.
Despite repeated discussions on these topics, China has made no commitments to align its behavior with the rules-based international order. There has been no observable change in its conduct.
On the contrary, China persists in its rapid modernization and expansion of its military, including augmenting its nuclear arsenal, which comprises at least 500 warheads. This intense modernization and expansion indicate China’s steadfastness, showing no inclination toward compromise.
Antonio Graceffo, a China economic analyst who holds a China MBA from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, studies national defense at the American Military University in West Virginia.
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