This Week at War: Gates's China Syndrome

The U.S. secretary of defense believes that better military relations with Beijing can help avoid an arms race. But is that what the Chinese want?

BY ROBERT HADDICK | JANUARY 7, 2011

View a slide show of China's growing military power

Will China listen to Gates?

On Jan. 9, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will leave on a three day visit to China, where he will meet with his counterparts in the Chinese government. According to Gates's spokesperson, the trip is "aimed at improving our mutual understanding and reducing the risk of miscalculation." Achieving a sustained military-to-military relationship between the United States and China has long been a goal of Gates. For the secretary, the ultimate purpose of such a relationship is to avoid a wasteful and potentially dangerous arms race between the two powers. What remains to be seen is whether Gates's hosts have the same view and whether they currently have much incentive to listen to their guest.

As a trained historian and former Cold Warrior, Gates is well aware of the costs and dangers of military competitions among great powers. Now in the eleventh hour of what will presumably be his last tour of public service, Gates is hoping that a system of regular contact between U.S. and Chinese defense officials will increase transparency, reduce suspicion, and ease the pressure that would otherwise push for greater military preparation on both sides. Gates is now deeply immersed in defense budget planning and feels the pressure smaller budgets will place on U.S. forces. Should Gates be able to avert an arms race with China, he would achieve a success that would eclipse those he may yet achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Gates, the U.S.-China military relationship benefits both sides and should logically be a high priority for both countries. Unfortunately, Chinese behavior on this issue does not support that view. In recent years, China has viewed Gates's desire for the relationship as mostly a U.S. interest, which Beijing has alternately granted and then withdrawn as a bargaining chip. The most recent such power play occurred a year ago after the Obama administration approved a weapon sale package to Taiwan. After much pleading from Gates in 2010, Beijing agreed to restart the meetings. With the Chinese having broken off the relationship in the past, another flare-up seems likely to cause a new shutdown in the channel. It seems clear that Gates and his Chinese counterparts assign different values to the military-to-military relationship.

If the United States is to avoid an arms race with China, it may need a different approach than merely assuming that the Chinese also want to avoid that race. Chinese policymakers may have concluded that the coming decade is no time for China to restrain its military production. Important new Chinese systems such as an anti-ship ballistic missile, a fifth-generation stealth fighter, new submarine models, and an aircraft carrier are completing their research and development phases. By contrast, the U.S. government is under severe financial strain and will have to impose more cuts in weapons procurement. It did not help Gates's negotiating leverage when, just prior to his departure for Beijing, photographs of tests of China's new stealth fighter appeared in the media and Adm. Robert Willard, Gates's commander in the Pacific, announced that China's medium range anti-ship ballistic missile -- the so-called "aircraft carrier killer" -- had achieved "initial operational capability." Gates, by contrast, held a press conference at the Pentagon three days before his departure to Beijing where he announced more spending cuts.

Gates continues to hope that a sustained military-to-military relationship between the United States and China will allow both sides to discuss their intentions and thus avoid dangerous misunderstandings. But he and other U.S. policymakers have to reckon with the possibility that China intends to use the upcoming period of retrenchment at the Pentagon to close the gap with U.S. military power in the region. If that's the case, U.S. policymakers will need to rethink their assumptions.

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

TECHNIPIRE

6:16 PM ET

January 7, 2011

weird

Why US is feared that China would close the gap with its military power in the region near China?Why US always wants to own military advantages over China at China's front door?

While US politicians describe China as a threat, I don't think Chinese people would not consider US military as a threat right in front of them.

 

PUBLICUS

6:57 AM ET

January 9, 2011

Whining and winging

Why do you Chinese cry all the time like babies? You by nature are certain you are innocent victims of the world that you in fact plan eventually to command - sooner rather than later.

The CCP is a fascist dictatorship. It must and needs to be contained. This is not apples and apples, the US and the CCP. The US and the CCP are apples and oranges (no slur intended against oranges). The situation is neither equal nor is it neutral. The CCP is a censoring fascist dictatorship which must be contained and constrained, similar to the CP of the failed and defunct USSR. The CCP is no more an innocent victim than was the CP of the former USSR.

Quit your belly aching. You are predators and schemers, not innocent victims.

 

TCH

1:28 AM ET

January 10, 2011

Interesting

I am somewhat inclined to agree with Publicus.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:49 AM ET

January 10, 2011

Thats the whole point of global hegemony

One single military superpower to dominate the world.

The US is not really afraid of China closing the "gap", as much as the US defense industry and its paid lobbyists are afraid tax payer's money going into other endeavors, such as building domestic infrastructure, or even education. That the China "threat" must be addressed and the CCP must be "overthrown" regardless of what the chinese people actually prefer. It's not about the Chinese, it's about the billions of dollars which the defense industry could make.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

11:20 AM ET

January 10, 2011

Pubicus, aren't you a little to old to troll?

Whining about whining? LOL.

You should learn how troll from that freetrader guy and his socketpuppets. At least he mixes some half truths in this comments to make himself look like he knows what he is talking about. You on the other hand are just an ignorant bigot.

 

TCH

3:41 PM ET

January 10, 2011

Yes and No

China has not been very secretive about its military ambitions, however defense contractors have had a very close relationship with the Pentagon since the 1950s as well.

 

PUBLICUS

2:33 AM ET

January 11, 2011

XTIANGODLOKI

Despite my disabling dotage, I do seem to remember you from other threads as a consistent attacker against the United States and as a regularly predictable apologist of the Communist Party of China. I should think that by now you could have read between the lines of my FP posts throughout 2010 to recognize that I have first hand, original knowledge of the CCP and the Chinese because I in fact live and work in the People's Republic of China. I've lived and worked in the CCP-PRC since January 2008. So we see that your dim sum intellect and mentality are typical of the educat, er, indoctrination the sheeple of the PRC get from the CCP and the state of ignorance and dimwittedness the CCP creates among its population. If you weren't born and raised on the mainland, then you have done a remarkable job of replicating the dim sum-wit of the mainland Chinese from where ever you might be.

It's clear that you need to significantly rethink how you loosely throw around the word "ignorant" and might consider that a mental mirror along with some self-reflection would serve you well in this respect. But then the fenqing do not listen to any 'wai qui' or other (foreign) devils, do you. The fenqing always and every time simply shout "Shut the fukc up" (repeatedly) the moment a devil tries to engage them in Socratic Q & A or in any kind of respectable intellectual discourse. After a minute or two, the fenqing predictably storm out of the room. I do understand: The Chinese are right and the world is wrong - the past 5000 years provide the conclusive evidence. The world will pay the due price and tribute to the Jung Gwo, sooner rather than later.

If you could think, then you would need to think again.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

8:44 PM ET

January 7, 2011

Wait a minute -

It's not a problem if the Chinese want to close the gap. It's only a problem if they try to exceed us. It's the "oh crap the USSR is closing the gap" mentality which caused the cold war; the weaker of two superpowers, first the USSR now China, has a huge incentive to push their military growth as much as possible until that "gap" is closed.

Part of "good communication" is ensuring that we know what both sides are building, and that there is rough parity between the sides. A conventional arms treaty, as the one which existed between the US and UK before WWII would work to prevent the kind of issues which faced the UK and Germany or the US and USSR.

 

PUBLICUS

7:16 AM ET

January 9, 2011

Intelligence v racism

Gates is taking the intelligent approach, i.e., the usual US approach in the best traditions of Woodrow Wilson and even - somewhat - Teddy Roosevelt. Gates is being rational, reasonable, realistic. However, the Chinese are none of these and haven't ever been any of these. The Chinese have their own uncompromising agenda. The CCP-PRC are not negotiators, they are not bargain makers; the Chinese are not compromisers. The Chinese are zero-sum, win-lose. The Chinese are not, never have been, interested in balance or parity. The Chinese are willful supremacists. The Chinese are firmly and irreversably set on supremacy for more than supremacy per se. The Chinese mean to seize supremacy and to have it as their 'rightful' inheritance as the Jung Gwo.

The Russians as the now defunct Cold War USSR ultimately agreed to a doctrine of peaceful coexistence with the United States. The Chinese have always seen only ultimate failure in such a doctrine. The Chinese have never considered peaceful coexistance or the balance of anything. The Chinese are supremacists through and through. It is unfortunate that Mr. Gates will find this out in Beijing beginning today. It is unfortunate for all of us that the Chinese are and always have been zero-sum, not balancers and not interested in any way in equalibrium.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

4:47 AM ET

January 10, 2011

what?

Your response to the Rational argument of Gates is a Racist one?

ok ....

 

PUBLICUS

7:08 AM ET

January 10, 2011

Consistent; rational

My argument Sam is consistent with the argument of the author. My analysis is that SecDef Gates will find Beijing to be as the author argues; and, further, to be as I myself extend the author's arguments. Don't get confused, Sam. Recognizing and fingering racism is not racism per se, nor need it be. I state who and what the Chinese are and have been on the historical record of the past 5000 years. Tell us of the many fenqing you have met and know and how you have tried to communicate with them - you know, the fenqing, China's KKK.

 

MARTY MARTEL

11:59 AM ET

January 8, 2011

Gates's Pakistan syndrome too

It is not just China where Defense Secretary Gates is wrong. Gates also keep offering apologies for Pakistan’s duplicitous behavior as well.

Gates has sought to justify Pakistan’s terrorist connections, alluding to a “deficit of trust” between Washington, DC and Islamabad. Mr Gates also said there was “some justification” for Pakistan's concerns about past American policies. Gen David Patraeus, rushed in with an apologia for his Pakistani friends, by claiming that while Faisal was inspired by militants in Pakistan, he did not necessarily have contacts with the militants. Both Adm Mike Mullen and Gen Patraeus fancy themselves to be “soldier statesmen” a la Gen Dwight Eisenhower. Adm Mullen has visited Pakistan 15 times and Gen Patraeus no less frequently. Both evidently have high opinions of their abilities to persuade Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to crack down on the Haqqani network in North Waziristan and the Taliban’s Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura.

For some diabolical reason, Gates, Mullen, Petraeus & Company has split the Taliban into the Afghan and Pakistani parts even though they are two peas of the same pod. The US military is going after the Pakistani Taliban, while it encourages the Pakistani intelligence to continue to shelter the entire top Afghan Taliban leadership in Baluchistan province. Mullah Muhammad Omar and other members of the Taliban's inner shura (council) have been ensconced for years in the Quetta area.

As General McChrystal reported in his assessment of August, 2009 to the President: ‘The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year‘.

However US drones have targeted militants in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), but not the Afghan Taliban leadership operating with impunity from Baluchistan. US ground-commando raids also have spared the Afghan Taliban's command-and-control network in Baluchistan.

One can only hope that Obama picks a realistic defense secretary when Gates is gone come February, 2011.

 

ONE LAZY DOG

2:12 PM ET

January 9, 2011

China to take advantage of Pentagon budget reductions?

Let's face it. China is taking advantage of the hugely inflated and out of control US defense spending. This misallocation of spending and intellectual resources is damaging to the US, not to China.

If the Chinese were astute they would encourage the US to continue with its damaging ways, such as by allowing pictures w limited provenance showing the new Chinese stealth aircraft!!

 

BILL888

2:21 PM ET

January 9, 2011

It's a cycle of offending and negotiation

Gates is wasting his time to "offend" by selling weapons to Taiwan and "negotiate" when he is under pressure to reduce the military budget. China's experts have seen this cycles many times. They no longer believe the USA is sincere in any real negotiation to reduce the risk of war, but only to buy some time for it to prolong its ability to stay as an hegemonic military monster. Gates's purpose is to divert the Chinese leadership's attention to military development. Chinese' s leadership does not believe Gates' visit is genuine for negotiation to reduce risk. Furthermore, some Chinese experts are already calling for an increase in military spending from 1.4% of the GDP to 2.6%. At the same time, China will reduce its military numbers down to 1.5 million in line with USA and the Russia. In another ten years, USA should loose all its advantages in Asia and the India Ocean. At then, real multi-laterallism will arrive for all countries.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:41 AM ET

January 10, 2011

So the defense industry wants another arms race

How else could the US defense industry justify spending billions and billions of tax payers money?

The reality is that China and US are both nuclear powers whose economy are intertwined. There is no chance they will go to war.

 

BILL888

12:48 AM ET

January 11, 2011

What USA says is not what it does.

You seem to forget the recent incidents of the Galaxy (Yinhe) ship search, the bombing of the Chinese embassy, the crashing of the EP-3 spy plane with the J-7 plane. One way or the other, some one in the USA will think of ways to bomb Chinese objects. The Qing Dynasty had the same thing: foreigners would not invade China if China did not invade other countries. The fact shown the Qing Dynasty was wrong. The deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein thought USA would not invade Iraq. He was so wrong. Peace is not build on wishes but is build on the ability to defend oneself as recorded through out history.

 

PUBLICUS

7:06 AM ET

January 11, 2011

Old Scores

Still looking to settle those old scores, eh Bill?!? Always and forever.

 

BILL888

1:36 AM ET

January 12, 2011

@Publicus

Did you get your money back from the Professor who taught you Chinese? You need to improve your understanding of Chinese language and culture.

 

PUBLICUS

11:20 AM ET

January 15, 2011

@BILL888

BILL this month marks my 36th consecutive month living and working in the PRC, on the mainland. I'd studied a bit before arriving here and had lived in East Asia under the shadow of the dragon for many years before deciding to come here to the mainland to join the 1 400 000 000 unhappy Chinese people.

I have much to learn and to improve on in my knowledge and understanding of the Jung Gwo and of the people of China. I've learned a few things too during 36 consecutive months of everyday life in the PRC. Reveal one matter to us that you have learned lately, or at least encourage us by saying you have learned something new recently.

 

PUBLICUS

3:11 AM ET

January 11, 2011

Unilateralism and hegemony

The Chinese are not thinking multilateralism at all. Beijing does not see, is incapable of envisaging a multipolar world or a bipolar world. The CCP in Beijing is authoritarian and arbitrary domestically, unilateral in its view of the world. This has been true of the Chinese for 5000 years. The CCP is a hegemon domestically and is highly focused on global hegemony sooner rather than later. This always has been the Chinese world view, it's just that now in a gobalized world of inner space satellites and the like the Jung Gwo fully intend to imlement and realize their delusions of history.

The CCP-StateCorporate-Military complex devours the huge amount of the money in the PRC and serves only itself. The complex is exclusive, elite, self centered and controls all aspects of life in the PRC. Needless to say, its is endemically and massively corrupt and accountable only to itself. There are no checks or balances against the determining power and money of the CCP-StateCorporare-Military complex of the CCP - there aren't any GAO, Noam Chomsky, no FP magazine. Any Chinese who might resemble a Chomsky, such as the Nobel Peace Laureate Lin Xiaobo, sits in a desolate remote prison in the frozen northeast of the PRC while his wife remains under house arrest and without her cellphone in Beijing. The PRC thus is the only government of the world to have a Nobel Peace Laureate incarcerated, imprisoned.

If you were Chinese in the CCP-PRC, where would you be right now? Would you be highly focusing on global hegemony or in the cell next to Dr Liu? I know where I would be.