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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”