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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS