The Ball Is in America’s Court for Improving China-U.S. Military Relations

“Mr. Gates’ China trip was not very easy” — This was American media commentary on his trip. Indeed, Gates’ China visit was viewed not only as a prelude to the Washington D.C. meeting of the Chinese and American heads of state, but, more importantly, he also set out with China to search for a future path of working together for the two militaries and even the two countries.

I reaffirm the principle of military exchanges

Speaking about the highlight of Gates’ trip, executive director, Wang Sheng, at the Center for Strategic Studies of the China Foundation for International Studies, believes that China reaffirmed the principles of developing military relations to the American side, namely: “respect, trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit.” It is worth noting that no matter whether it is a meeting at the highest level, where Chairman Hu Jintao would meet with Gates, or it is a working-level meeting — such as talks with Defense Minister Liang Guanglie — both will speak to these four concepts. The Chinese side firmly conveyed strong signals to the Americans that they should not be indifferent to this.

Besides this, both the Chinese and American militaries clarified each side’s strategic intent at the talks, hoping to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. The honorary president of the Shanghai Institute for International Relations, Chen Qimao, said: “The Chinese side reaffirmed its strategic goals to safeguard sovereignty, and it has no intention of challenging American military superiority.” The Americans emphasized that they have no intention of oppressing and surrounding China in the western Pacific Ocean, and that a military presence is important to prevent the worsening of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

On a practical level, China and America expressed an intention to further stabilize and institutionalize military exchanges. The two militaries finalized exchange programs for the current year, in such fields as high-level visits, institutional projects and higher education, and decided to develop cooperation in the non-traditional security field. Both sides still will continue consultations on guiding principles and a framework for military ties, and, in due course, draw up documents of mutual agreement.

Regarding mainstream opinion of Gates’ visit to the Second Artillery Command, experts indicated not to read too much into it. On the one hand, Gates is far from the first United States defense secretary to visit the “Second Artillery” — Donald Rumsfeld is an example. On the other hand, no other country would reveal the family jewels of the guided missile units for foreigners to see — this gesture’s bearing and significance is ambitious in its essence.

The main aspects of conflict in the United States

During the visit, Gates expressed hope on several occasions that the Chinese-American military relationship would develop smoothly. But what is regrettable is that several prior approaches of the White House and Pentagon are suspected of acting at cross-purposes with one another. Wang Sheng bluntly says that both sides should work hard to improve military relations, but the main area of conflict still lies with the United States.

Nowadays many American neo-conservatives believe that China-United States relations is a “zero-sum game,” that a great power’s inevitable rise harms another great power’s interests, and that “restricting,” “limiting” and even “containing” have all become some people’s tag lines for China policy.

Therefore, differences and even friction have emerged in the security field for the Chinese and American militaries. Gates’ trip originally should have been taken as early as June of last year, but due to American insistence on selling arms to Taiwan at the beginning of last year, it was postponed until now. When the two defense ministers answered reporters’ questions, Gates still explained the weapons sale to Taiwan like this: “[This] was actually made under my previous boss, President Bush, in 2008 and announced at that time and the missiles being referred to are air defense missiles, so strictly on the defensive side.” No wonder the media ridiculed Gates: “Americans are also skilled in shadow boxing.”

Moreover, United States military aircraft and warships are frequently conducting surveillance and reconnaissance in Chinese airspace, territorial waters and its exclusive economic zone. Additionally, Congress’s 2000 passage of the “National Defense Authorization Act” and the “DeLay Amendment” set restrictions on military exchanges, which, together, bring about a negative effect on normalized exchanges of the two militaries. Although it’s almost impossible for the American side to make a fresh start in the short term, exchanges on mutually understanding the concerns of the opposing side are still beneficial.

China and America—Who is threatening whom?

Just at the moment of Gates’ trip to China, American public opinion vigorously speculated on the Chinese military threat and used this as a demand that China improve the “just cause” of military transparency — yet some western media instead used China’s next generation J-20 stealth fighter test flight as a chance to expound on this.

China and America — Who is threatening whom? If America is so alarmed about China’s test flight, then when three United States aircraft carriers gather in the western Pacific, China should have adequate cause to express its misgivings. Chen Qimao believes America is attempting to restore a leadership role in this region, and that China has made certain appropriate “representations.” It should be admitted that China’s defensive military strength is certainly growing, but, no matter how it grows, the difference between it and American military strength is still very far. Even the New York Times also says that China’s military technology “remains a generation or more behind the United States,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/asia/06china.html?scp=4&sq=china%20military%20technology&st=cse), and the differences are even wider in naval and sea deployment capabilities. It seems that, regarding the so-called Chinese military threat, many Americans are hiding the obvious and feigning ignorance.

Regarding so-called “military transparency,” the American side frequently asks what is the strategic intent of China’s military development, but then what designs do the Americans have for maintaining overwhelming military superiority in East Asia? I fear that they are not simply concerned with the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Although Gates’ trip can be regarded as a portrayal of warming military ties, the road before us remains uneven. Public opinion believes that describing the future of Chinese-American military exchanges as the “road ahead is long and bumpy” is more on-point than “the burden is heavy, and the road is long.”