USA demands China Military transparency
-
China's military cannot meet Washington's expectations of transparency, scholars in Beijing warned today, after a report from the US defence department said the secrecy of the People's Liberation Army was increasing the potential for "misunderstanding and miscalculation".
The annual Pentagon report was published amid frictions between the countries over US arms sales to Taiwan, US naval drills with South Korea and China's growing confidence in the South China Seas. It argues that despite modest improvements in the PLA's openness, "the limited transparency in China's military and security affairs enhances uncertainty and increases the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation."
The PLA has issued reports on its work and attempted to improve links with other militaries in recent years, engaging in more joint exercises and taking part in peacekeeping missions. But Shi Yinhong, an expert on Sino-US relations at Renmin University, said: "Although China has steadily increased its military transparency over the past few years, it's currently impossible for China to reach the level that the US demands."
This year China announced that the military budget would rise by 7.5% to 532.11bn yuan (£51.7bn), after two decades of double-digit annual increases. Experts suggested the slowdown reflected Chinese concerns about the way it was perceived, as well as financial constraints. China argues that spending remains well below US levels and that US capabilities remain far superior.
The Pentagon believes that China's actual military spending is roughly double the stated level. Its report says China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile programme in the world and that it is developing an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range of more than 1,500km, capable of attacking aircraft carriers in the western Pacific.
It adds that analysts believe China will not have a domestically produced aircraft carrier and associated ships for another five years, although foreign assistance could speed that process up. It also predicts: "It is unlikely ... that China will be able to project and sustain large forces in high-intensity combat operations far from China until well into the following decade."
Beijing suspended military-to-military ties between the countries in January, in retaliation for US arms sales to Taiwan. The report notes that while Beijing has improved economic and cultural ties with Taiwan, it has continued the build-up of missiles opposite the island and expanded its military advantage.
Last month Beiing reacted angrily when the US secretary of state waded into the territorial dispute over the South China Sea between China and several regional powers including Vietnam and the Philippines. Hillary Clinton said resolving the row was a diplomatic priority and was in the national interest of the US.
Other countries complain that China is taking a tougher line on the dispute. It recently began describing rights over the strategic waterway – which is also potentially rich in natural resources – as a "core interest".
China has also complained about US plans to hold joint drills with South Korea in the Yellow Sea, between China and the Korean peninsula. "The United States appears to want to declare to the world: 'The Asia-Pacific and the oceans remain under the United States'," said a commentary in the Communist party's official People's Daily newspaper.
Zhu Feng, of Peking University's School of International Studies, said the combination of issues had led to an "unprecedented surge" in tensions but that the prospect of conflict remained low.
Drew Thompson, a China expert at the Nixon Centre in Washington, warned: "The US military and the Chinese military don't have a common understanding, a rules of the road, for navigation. That's a major cause for concern."
The element of surprise will give any military force, advantages over it's "enemies".
-
Come on.....we are orientals. Stripping naked maybe OK with you. We prefer to be clothed!
-
The full report can be downloaded here. It was delayed for months to tone down the rhetoric to avoid antagonising the Chinese. Very substantial increase in military expenditure and strong focus on C4ISR (信�化) (but how good are they at it?).
PRC media accuse US of trying to encircle China but they fail to see their recent actions (blindly supporting Sudan, N. Korea, Myannmar, Iran and military build-up, troops on some Spratly islands) have alarmed Asian countries (or at least made them suspicious).I know the S. China Sea and Spratlys are vital to their oil and raw material imports via shipping (it is just as important to other countries like S. Korea, Japan as well). Spratlys are over 1000 nm from Hainan but only 50-150nm from coast of M'sia, Indon and Phillippines - how to justify it's all theirs? They are already the dominant East Asian Power, now want to be dominant SE Asian Power as well? If they succeed in claiming the whole S. China Sea, wah, siow liao, all geography textbooks must rewrite, must now classify China in SE Asia. :-) But seriously, if S. China Sea is theirs does that mean it is off limits to Asean navies? -
China firmly opposes U.S. military report on China
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7108911.html
China Defense Ministry refutes Pentagon's China report
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7108838.html
Pentagon's distortion on China's military
-
Originally posted by OldBird69:PRC media accuse US of trying to encircle China but they fail to see their recent actions (blindly supporting Sudan, N. Korea, Myannmar, Iran and military build-up, troops on some Spratly islands) have alarmed Asian countries (or at least made them suspicious).
Suspicious of what?
-
A remarks from the inside......
I have been living in China for about 7 years now, and there is constent talk in China about how some Americans have the view of a “china threat.” Although there are some scholars and politicians in the US who view China as a threat, I have found after living in China and reading their newspapers and books that there is more of a “US threat” view in China than there is a “China threat” view in the US. Almost everyday in China you can read Anti-US news articles, many of them fake. The media is manipulated in China to make it seem like the US is threatening China, and and all this negative news manipulates the Chinese view of Americans. China’s media is the main reason the Chinese have a “US threat” view, but the same Chinese are quick to criticise those Americans who have a “China threat” view. The problem with the Chinese is that they think us foreigners can’t understand Chinese enough to read their newspapers and books and watch their news on TV. The world is getting smaller, the the Chinese can’t hide their secrets anymore. So, I would say to our Chinese brothers that they have to first drop their “US threat” mentality and then maybe Americans will drop their “China threat” mentality. After all, there are more Chinese who are manipulated by their media to believe the “US threat” than American who believe the “China threat.”
-
sorry for the pilot.......
BEIJING — A plane that crashed in a northeastern Chinese village this week belonged to the North Korean military and went down because of mechanical failure, the official Xinhua News Agency said Thursday. The pilot reportedly died on the spot.
The unusual accident involving what appeared to be a MiG-21 fighter jet spurred speculation that the plane was piloted by a defector from impoverished North Korea. It crashed Tuesday in an apple orchard in Liaoning province about 150 kilometers (90 miles) from the North Korean border.
"The plane ... lost its course because of mechanical failure and strayed into the Chinese territory," the Xinhua report said, citing unspecified Chinese government sources. "Investigations found that the crash was caused by mechanical failure."
The pilot was killed in the accident, Xinhua said. No other details were provided. Villagers in the area said they heard the pilot died on impact.
-
US Air Strike on China's Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 was Deliberate
Fresh evidence that NATO's bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade was deliberate
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec1999/chin-d01.shtml
U.S's strategy towards China is quite clear. Contain China's military power from increasing, build up alliances with states around China as a hedge again China, deploy military assets around China, prevent unification of Taiwan and China.
But this is only one part of U.S's global strategy.
-
by Li Bing
"Hm, which corner of the globe have we not occupied, bombed, or threatened yet?" -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends the U.S. - ASEAN Ministerial Meeting during the 43rd annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Hanoi July 22, 2010. (Xinhua/Reuters Photo)
…All parties in the region covet the comparatively rich oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea, especially the US, which is keen to control energy resources all over the world, for which it never hesitates to launch a war…
BEIJING, July 29 (Xinhuanet) — Instigating Southeast Asian nations over the South China Sea issue is a gambit aimed at containing China’s rise
The South China Sea is a body of water with rich natural resources and is of strategic significance to China in a geopolitical sense.
The current standstill in resolving territorial disputes in the South China Sea is being exploited as needed pretext for outside interference.
At the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Regional Forum held in Vietnam on July 23, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that resolving the South China Sea issue was “pivotal to regional stability” and suggested an international mechanism to settle the dispute.
The United States is the largest external power hampering a peaceful settlement of the South China Sea issue.
The Obama administration adjusted Washington’s Southeast Asian policy in an attempt to cozy up to ASEAN countries. The US is trying to strengthen its influence in the region so as to contain China by interfering with the ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.
Washington has strengthened its military cooperation in the region, stealthily instigated and supported some local countries to scramble for the Nansha Islands, and has dispatched naval vessels to China’s exclusive economic zone to conduct illegal surveys.
Resolving the South China Sea issue is of great significance for China’s peaceful development. As far as national security is concerned, full control over the waters could enable the Chinese navy to better protect its seas. It is also helpful in maintaining security in the Asia-Pacific region.
By trying to internationalize the South China Sea issue, the US wants to put off its resolution so as to contain China’s rise.
The US has multiple interests in Southeast Asia.
On a strategic level, Washington wants Southeast Asia to form the center of an “Asian strategic alliance” that includes Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and India.
On a political level, the US continues to export “democracy” and Western values to Southeast Asian countries.
On the economic level, the US has close ties with Southeast Asia in terms of trade, finance and investment and considers the latter an important overseas market, resource supplier and investment destination.
At a military and security level, the US wants to set up more military bases and positively interfere in security affairs in the Asia-Pacific region.
All parties in the region covet the comparatively rich oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea, especially the US, which is keen to control energy resources all over the world, for which it never hesitates to launch a war.
Therefore, the US has made great efforts to complicate, extend and internationalize the South China Sea issue and it assiduously attempts to make the sea declared as international waters so that it can wantonly participate in oil exploitation in the region.
In addition, through cooperation with oil companies of Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines, American oil giants have participated in exploiting oil and gas in the South China Sea and the US military claims that it is responsible for providing security for these companies.
The US has a national interest in navigation in the South China Sea. In order to secure its control on important sea-lanes, the US doesn’t want to see China cooperating with other concerned countries to resolve the issue.
On the contrary, through high-intensity surveillance of China via warships and planes and holding of joint military drills with certain countries, the US is hindering a peaceful resolution of the issue.
The South China Sea issue not only concerns vying for jurisdiction of islands and reefs, delimitation of exclusive economic zones and division of marine resources, but also involves China’s strategic sea-lane safety and long-term development. Therefore, the issue should be accorded strategic importance as it concerns national security.
An important precondition for putting forward the doctrine of “setting aside disputes and working for joint development” is that China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands on the South China Sea. Setting aside disputes doesn’t mean indefinite abeyance, nor to abandon sovereignty.
China needs to strengthen fishery administration and maritime supervision so as to protect the rights and interests of Chinese fishermen, dispel illegal foreign survey ships, claim sovereignty in the South China Sea and contain the rampant plundering of its resources by others.
China has persisted in resolving the dispute through peaceful negotiations with neighboring countries. China never bullies the weak. At the same time, Beijing will never allow external forces, like the US, to interfere in the matter.
The author is a former research fellow at the Institute of International Studies, Central Party School.
(Source: China Daily)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-07/29/c_13420374.htm
-
U.S military bases encircling China:
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/12/20/u-s-threat-theory-and-how-we-talk-about-threats/
If others want to sell arms to China and thus increase China's military strength, U.S will be hell-bent on sabotaging and blocking it.
The European Union shelved plans to lift a 16-year-old arms embargo against China because of concerns about the nation's human-rights record and Pacific rim stability, completing a policy shift that marks a U.S. victory and a French defeat.
The U.S. is fighting a French-led drive to repeal the European export curbs, imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators. The main American allies in Europe on the issue are the U.K. and Scandinavian countries, which can block a policy change because it needs unanimity in the EU.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3Aqi.gEpHmk&refer=asia
But when it comes to selling arms to Taiwan and increase the military strength of China's opponents:
U.S. sells weapons to Taiwan, angering China
-
You sounded like a broken Radio......from the chapter of...
GREAT-HAN CHAUVINISM
AND HECEMONISM PRESENTED AS PROLETARIAN
INTERNATIONALISMlike i say u should just remain focus on voting PAP out.....
-
I am quite amused by the map showing the US airbases surrounding China provided by Vote PAP Out to Save SG. It mistakenly shows Taiwan as a part of Chinese territory and fails to recognize that Taiwan's airbases are part of this supposed encirclement. Then the post went on to tag an article from Washingtonpost with the headline 'U.S. sells weapons to Taiwan, anger China'. Irony at its best!!
-
Originally posted by TRA1:
I am quite amused by the map showing the US airbases surrounding China provided by Vote PAP Out to Save SG. It mistakenly shows Taiwan as a part of Chinese territory and fails to recognize that Taiwan's airbases are part of this supposed encirclement. Then the post went on to tag an article from Washingtonpost with the headline 'U.S. sells weapons to Taiwan, anger China'. Irony at its best!!
If you are from Taiwan, then so be it, I won't argue with you.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
You sounded like a broken Radio......from the chapter of...
GREAT-HAN CHAUVINISM
AND HECEMONISM PRESENTED AS PROLETARIAN
INTERNATIONALISMlike i say u should just remain focus on voting PAP out.....
This is not what bullshit han chauvinism, this is anti-U.S hegemony.
U.S kills people worldwide and is hell bent on establishing global hegemony, that is why I must oppose them.
China also opposes U.S hegemony, that is why I support them.
Please don't use Lee Kuan Yew's propaganda filth as argument.
You know well that Lee Kuan Yew is a british dog only faking as chinese for sake of politics.
Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope
http://www.amazon.com/Dismantling-Empire-Americas-American-Project/dp/0805093036
It's the Beginning of the End for the American Empire
Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Empire
http://www.takimag.com/article/mr._obama_tear_down_this_empire/
-
The fact is most if not all South East Asian governments prefer to see a stronger US military presence in our region than a stronger Chinese military presence.
As for whether I am from Taiwan or not, it is immaterial to this discussion.
-
Originally posted by TRA1:
The fact is most if not all South East Asian governments prefer to see a stronger US military presence in our region than a stronger Chinese military presence.
Can you quote me sources from the governments in South east asia?
U.S media repeats this line but I haven't seen actual officials from south east asia saying it.
-
Originally posted by TRA1:
As for whether I am from Taiwan or not, it is immaterial to this discussion.
I support unification of Taiwan and China under "one state, different systems".
If Taiwan is independent, U.S will use it as a pawn to contain China.
-
I support the Taiwanese people to choose their own future under no coercion.
-
I support Taiwanese, Cantonese, Shanghainess, ....united as one nation, with their rights to choose their future, with no coercion from any outsider.
-
US can have weapon... while china cannot?? ...
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
I support Taiwanese, Cantonese, Shanghainess, ....united as one nation, with their rights to choose their future, with no coercion from any outsider.
Does the fact that 1500 missile aim at Taiwan consider an outside coercion?I believe Sg Taiwan trade talk is off now that China came out and express concern is that an enough coercion.
In Asia Talk is Talk but everyone look over the shoulder to see what missile and plane behind the TALK.
Although ASEAN is noted to be a Talk shop but hell....everyone is in no disillusion of having Planes and Ships and Tanks.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Does the fact that 1500 missile aim at Taiwan consider an outside coercion?I believe Sg Taiwan trade talk is off now that China came out and express concern is that an enough coercion.
In Asia Talk is Talk but everyone look over the shoulder to see what missile and plane behind the TALK.
Although ASEAN is noted to be a Talk shop but hell....everyone is in no disillusion of having Planes and Ships and Tanks.
actually where is the tens of thousands of american nuclear missles aiming at? it really doesn't matter, does it? the missles can be at arizona and is aiming at the sky, but when it is launched it can make many turns and hit you. Are you coerced?
Ever ask the average taiwanese if they are afraid of the missles? they will probably tell you that with so many mainland chinese tourists there in taiwan lao gong �共would never fire any missiles.
Did China say enough is enough? hehe, when the announcement was made, I was in gz, around the time of singapore independence, the chinese analyst in 凤凰�said that this was expected after the signing of ECFA. Where you get the idea that the SG Taiwan talk is off?
Do Singapore use planes and ships and tanks to back up our talk? is that why america is sending their aircraft carrier here, to talk? may be china should send their fleets of submarine to LA and SF, to talk.
-
eh..............vote out pap to save S'pore................
now u also visit globalresearch.ca....................LOL.............
don't know who keep saying i crazy hor ????
-
globalresearch is not u.s right wing conspiracy site.
-
Originally posted by OldBird69:
The full report can be downloaded here. It was delayed for months to tone down the rhetoric to avoid antagonising the Chinese. Very substantial increase in military expenditure and strong focus on C4ISR (信�化) (but how good are they at it?).
PRC media accuse US of trying to encircle China but they fail to see their recent actions (blindly supporting Sudan, N. Korea, Myannmar, Iran and military build-up, troops on some Spratly islands) have alarmed Asian countries (or at least made them suspicious).I know the S. China Sea and Spratlys are vital to their oil and raw material imports via shipping (it is just as important to other countries like S. Korea, Japan as well). Spratlys are over 1000 nm from Hainan but only 50-150nm from coast of M'sia, Indon and Phillippines - how to justify it's all theirs? They are already the dominant East Asian Power, now want to be dominant SE Asian Power as well? If they succeed in claiming the whole S. China Sea, wah, siow liao, all geography textbooks must rewrite, must now classify China in SE Asia. :-) But seriously, if S. China Sea is theirs does that mean it is off limits to Asean navies?Exactly. There is no way the Spratlys can belong to China given its geographic proximity with Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and maybe Malaysia. However, Chinese claims are based on historical ownership.
1. They say some of their dudes were sailing around, found those islands and drew them on their maps two thousand years ago, thus they owned the islands historical.
2. They also say that China lost the islands because the Europeans who came in and took advantage of them.
3. They also claim to have found Chinese pottery and coins on those islands proving that the Chinese were there and the island belong to them.
In other words, they are saying that they "drew it on the maps first", and the Europeans (pretty much the people who run the international community) owes it to China for what they've done to China, AND that wherever their coins are, belongs to them.
So it seems the recipe for claiming islands on the part is to draw first, make ppl guilty for not giving to them, and to "chope" the place with tissue paper or coins (whichever is the argued predominant currency).
Oh, as for the Chinese embassy bombing. If the Chinese embassy had been relaying Serbian military signals, which is the premise of the "conspiracy", then the Chinese pretty much made themselves legitimate MILITARY targets for their actions. So good show by the Pentagon planners for hitting it!
Of course, i guess its just not a "legitimate" political target eh?