LexisNexis(TM) Academic - Document
Copyright 2005 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)
July 21, 2005 Thursday
London Edition 1
SECTION: LEADER; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 475 words
HEADLINE: China's rising power Military strength is normal. What matters is how it is used
BODY:
China has reacted angrily to the US defence department's report to Congress on Chinese military power, condemning the Pentagon for "unreasonably" and "rudely" attacking Beijing's modernisation of its armed forces.
Beijing protests too much. The US document - neither as hawkish as Pentagon hardliners nor as accommodating as State department doves would like - is measured and clearly written. It does not reach alarmist conclusions but summarises what is known about Chinese strategy and the People's Liberation Army and sets out a range of plausible scenarios. The report talks of a possible future threat to Asia but also says China's ability to project its power is currently limited and declares that the US would welcome the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China.
Yet there is a grain of truth in the Chinese complaint. The US establishment as a whole - after all, it is Congress that commissions these public annual assessments, not the Pentagon that wants to hand them out - seems to assume that there is something inherently abnormal and disturbing about China's attempts to modernise its old-fashioned military forces.
Nothing is more reasonable or predictable than a rising economic power such as China using some of its newly earned wealth to enhance its military might. What matters is how that strength is used. Increased influence requires increased responsibility.
Here China's Communist rulers have much to learn. The statement last week by Major-General Zhu Chenghu, a hawkish commander, that China was prepared to countenance the nuclear destruction of hundreds of US and Chinese cities if the US attacked China in a conflict over Taiwan was the opposite of responsible. The theory that his wild threats are part of a campaign to deter the US from defending Taiwan hardly justifies such inflammatory rhetoric.
A more immediate threat to US interests is China's willingness to use its power in diplomatic rather than military contests. Washington is alarmed at the speed with which China is befriending unsavoury regimes hostile to the US, including Iran and Venezuela, simply because they have oil.
The US has guaranteed the security of the Pacific since the second world war and enjoyed a period as sole global superpower following the end of the cold war but it will have to get used to an increasingly muscular China.
China will also need to adapt to its new circumstances. The Pentagon rightly complains about the secrecy surrounding China's military strategies and budgets, and reckons real spending is two to three times the published figure of Dollars 30bn (Pounds 17.3bn) a year.
There may thus be a good reason why the latest assessment reveals nothing shocking about the PLA. The truly alarming aspects of China's plans and capabilities will be the ones that are not in the report because the Pentagon knows nothing about them.
LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2005
Financial Times (London, England)
July 21, 2005 Thursday
London Edition 1
SECTION: LEADER; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 475 words
HEADLINE: China's rising power Military strength is normal. What matters is how it is used
BODY:
China has reacted angrily to the US defence department's report to Congress on Chinese military power, condemning the Pentagon for "unreasonably" and "rudely" attacking Beijing's modernisation of its armed forces.
Beijing protests too much. The US document - neither as hawkish as Pentagon hardliners nor as accommodating as State department doves would like - is measured and clearly written. It does not reach alarmist conclusions but summarises what is known about Chinese strategy and the People's Liberation Army and sets out a range of plausible scenarios. The report talks of a possible future threat to Asia but also says China's ability to project its power is currently limited and declares that the US would welcome the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China.
Yet there is a grain of truth in the Chinese complaint. The US establishment as a whole - after all, it is Congress that commissions these public annual assessments, not the Pentagon that wants to hand them out - seems to assume that there is something inherently abnormal and disturbing about China's attempts to modernise its old-fashioned military forces.
Nothing is more reasonable or predictable than a rising economic power such as China using some of its newly earned wealth to enhance its military might. What matters is how that strength is used. Increased influence requires increased responsibility.
Here China's Communist rulers have much to learn. The statement last week by Major-General Zhu Chenghu, a hawkish commander, that China was prepared to countenance the nuclear destruction of hundreds of US and Chinese cities if the US attacked China in a conflict over Taiwan was the opposite of responsible. The theory that his wild threats are part of a campaign to deter the US from defending Taiwan hardly justifies such inflammatory rhetoric.
A more immediate threat to US interests is China's willingness to use its power in diplomatic rather than military contests. Washington is alarmed at the speed with which China is befriending unsavoury regimes hostile to the US, including Iran and Venezuela, simply because they have oil.
The US has guaranteed the security of the Pacific since the second world war and enjoyed a period as sole global superpower following the end of the cold war but it will have to get used to an increasingly muscular China.
China will also need to adapt to its new circumstances. The Pentagon rightly complains about the secrecy surrounding China's military strategies and budgets, and reckons real spending is two to three times the published figure of Dollars 30bn (Pounds 17.3bn) a year.
There may thus be a good reason why the latest assessment reveals nothing shocking about the PLA. The truly alarming aspects of China's plans and capabilities will be the ones that are not in the report because the Pentagon knows nothing about them.
LOAD-DATE: July 21, 2005
posted by Eastlaw at 9:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home