Carter Is Chewing Asia-Pacific Peace Foundation with His Big Mouth

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 30 May 2016
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Mak Wen Yao. Edited by Kevin Uy.

 

 

On May 27, U.S. Secretary of Defense Carter delivered yet another aggressive and strongly worded speech against China. He claimed China is “erect[ing] a Great Wall of self-isolation,” and is undertaking “expansive and unprecedented actions in the South China Sea.” He expressed that the Pentagon will station all of its most advanced weapons to the Pacific, including the stealthy F-35 fighters, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft and stealth destroyers.

During Carter’s speech to U.S. Naval War College on May 25, he described the U.S. strategic attitude against China with the analogy of Cold War confrontation with the “Soviet Union over those many decades.” He expressed hope that China's internal logic and the society will change eventually, and “will prevail at some point.”

U.S. senior military officers continuously advocate for China-U.S. confrontation; furthermore, they compared it with the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, thus becoming the prominent trend in the current China-U.S. relationship and the South China Sea situation. Chinese senior officers have never made similar remarks; the U.S. military is seemingly becoming the destructive force across all aspects of the China-U.S. relationship.

The nature of the China-U.S. relationship will to a significant extent decide the nature of international relationships of the 21st century. U.S. senior military officers explicitly displayed the determination to confront China, and assumed a posture with intentions to overwhelm China over strategic momentum; this was where they chewed up the Asia-Pacific foundation of peace with their big mouths.

There are serious disagreements between the different claimant states surrounding the South China Sea issue. However, within these few years where tension escalated quickly, there was no attempt by any side to undertake military intimidation. China, as the strongest country in the region, has never declared to Vietnam or the Philippines that we will station our most advanced weapons in the South China Sea. We insist on resolving conflicting standpoints through peace talks. To maintain peace within the South China Sea is the common goal of all countries in the region.

U.S. intervention brought new development to the militarization issue in the South China Sea. Not only have U.S. warships and airplanes arrived, but the U.S. (or the U.S. military) strategic intention to halt China’s rise in the South China Sea region was also publicly expressed. The South China Sea had entered a period of unprecedented tension; certain issues and plots that were unrelated to territorial disputes were squeezed in [to the dialogue] by Washington.

Carter’s speeches are the worst threats received by China since the end of the Cold War; they verify the concerns that some Chinese have regarding the worst case scenario of the China-U.S. relationship — that the U.S. does not only desire to contain China’s ambition to rise, but will actually do it.

The Pentagon, perhaps, is very willing to see China and the U.S. progress to confrontation. A “cold war” between the big countries is more straight-forward to the U.S. military, and more familiar too, while the complicated China-U.S. relationship makes it challenging for them to find their role. Some Americans probably believe the U.S. has a better chance of winning by competing with China in military power than in other aspects.

Needless to say, the U.S. cannot frighten China with its military intimidation. The South China Sea is so close to China, not only can the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) offset U.S. advantages in military equipment with superior numbers and better distance, we are fully confident in implementing counter-deterrence against the U.S. in the South China Sea region. Even though military confrontation in the South China Sea may be challenging to China, if the U.S. forces us to do so, do we have a way out?

The bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999 by U.S.-led NATO awakened the Chinese. That year was the turning point where China's defense systems was put into high gear. U.S. employment of military pressure against China in the South China Sea region since last year and Carter’s threat to China with “cold war” and “long-term confrontation” last week can be said to have deeply stirred the Chinese again.

China must hasten the steps to construct a modernized military defense; we must not have any illusions on this issue. China must first make sure the U.S. is convinced that once they take any military actions against Chinese targets in the South China Sea, they will pay a price that the U.S. cannot afford. Second, China must further construct its ability to fully deter the U.S. and to increase U.S. military strategic risks to threaten China. At the moment, U.S. senior military officers are too casual in expressing harsh remarks against China, and American society rarely feels that those generals are pulling them into a gamble.

China's industrial output has surpassed that of the U.S., and although it still lags behind the U.S. in terms of cutting-edge technology, the development of military technology is not slow, and has great potential. The gap between China and the U.S. in total military strength should have shrunk further. In addition, China is closer to the sea — and the PLA, in particular, should have overall superiority against the U.S. military. This must become China's unwavering goal. Moreover, this goal is what China can achieve.


社评:卡特在用大嘴啃食亚太和平的根基

美国国防部长卡特27日再次针对中国发表措辞激烈、强硬的演讲,他宣称中国正在“构筑一座自我孤立的长城”,采取“前所未有的扩张主义行动”。他表示五角大楼会把最精良的武器“全部”派到太平洋地区,包括F-35隐形战机、P-8侦察机,以及隐形驱逐舰等等。

卡特25日在向海军战争学院演讲时把美国对中国的战略态势比喻成“宛如与前苏联持续近50年的冷战对峙”。他表示寄希望于中国的内部逻辑与社会终将改变,“那时一切将会画上句号”。

美军方高官连续宣扬美中对抗,并且将之类比成当年的美苏“冷战”,成为时下中美关系和南海局势的突出动向。中国高官从未发表过类似言论,美国军方似乎正在成为中美全面关系的破坏性力量。

中美关系的性质将在很大程度上决定整个21世纪国际关系的性质,美军高官对中国指名道姓地展示对抗决心,摆出一副要在战略气势上压倒中国的姿态,这是在用他们的大嘴啃食亚太和平的根基。
  
围绕南海问题各声索方存在严重分歧,但是在紧张升级的这几年里,各方从来都没有相互进行军事威胁,中国作为域内实力最强的一方,一直没有对越南或菲律宾说过:我们要把最先进的武器都调到南海来。我们坚持通过和平谈判解决争端的立场。维护南海和平是地区内所有国家的共同愿望。
  
美国的介入带来了南海问题军事化的新苗头。不仅美国的军舰和飞机来了,而且美国(或者是军方)要在南海地区遏制中国崛起的战略意图公开表达了出来。南海进入前所未有的紧张时期,一些与领土纠纷毫无关系的元素和图谋被华盛顿塞了进来。

卡特的话是冷战结束以来中国所听到的最严重的威胁,它们验证了部分中国人对中美关系最糟糕情况的担心,那就是美国不仅有遏制中国崛起的愿望,而且它会真的那样去做。

五角大楼也许很愿意中美走向对抗,大国“冷战”对美国军方来说更简单,也更熟悉,而复杂的中美关系却有些让他们找不到自己的角色。一些美国人大概相信,美同中国拼军事比拼别的更有把握取胜。

美挥舞军事威胁的大棒吓唬不住中国,这一点已经无需多说。南海离中国这么近,莫说解放军可以用数量和距离优势抵消美军的装备质量优势,我们对在南海地区实施对美反威慑有充分信心。即使南海的军事角力对中国来说有困难,一旦美方逼我们这样做,我们有退路吗?

1999年美国领导的北约轰炸中国驻南斯拉夫使馆,炸醒了中国人。那一年是中国国防建设走进快车道的转折点。去年以来美在南海向中国施加军事压力,直到上周卡特用“冷战”“长期对抗”威胁中国,可以说再次深刻触动了中国人。

中国必须加快全面建设现代国防的步伐,在这个问题上我们决不可存有任何幻想。中国一要做到让美方确信,他们一旦在南海采取针对中国目标的军事打击行动,必将付出美国无法承受的代价。二是中国要进一步建设全面威慑美国的能力,增加美国军事威胁中国的战略风险。目前美军高官对中国放狠话还是太随意了,美国社会很少感觉到那些将军在拉着他们一起冒险。

中国的工业总产值已经超过美国,尖端科技虽落后美国,但军事应用科技发展得并不慢,而且潜力很大。中国总军力与美国总军力的差距应该缩得更小,而在中国近海,解放军尤其应当获得针对美军的整体优势。这有必要成为中国的坚定目标。而且,这个目标是中国可以达到的。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Germany: Trump’s False Impatience