What's new

China needs to be transparent in defence issues: USA

Lankan Ranger

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
12,550
Reaction score
0
China needs to be transparent in defence issues: USA

Ahead of the resumption of Sino-US military-to-military dialogue, the Obama administration has asked China to be more transparent in its defence communication with America, saying there is uncertainty about Beijing's future capabilities and intentions.

"Much like the region itself, China's future remains uncertain," Michael Schiffer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia policy, said in his remarks at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

This is a remarkably complex moment in the history for China as it acquires new capabilities and begins to play a greater role in regional and global economic and security affairs, he said.

"And it is this very uncertainty about China's future capabilities and intentions that makes the military component of the bilateral relationship so extraordinarily challenging and so extraordinarily important to get right," he said.

"It is the question, in fact, that we each have about each other, because China certainly has questions about us, just as we have questions about China, that underscores the importance of developing a deeper dialogue and a more durable military and security relationship between our two countries," Schiffer said.

This is an issue that the US talk quite openly and frankly with the Chinese, he said. "We emphasise on our part that while we understand that China is a growing economic power, it's modernising its military in ways that are natural aspects of any country's development, (but) the lack of transparency about the nature of China's investments, its intents and its doctrine has caused disquiet in the United States and the region."

"It is, therefore, in both of our countries' interest, indeed in the interest of the region as a whole, that we are able to have forthcoming and candid conversations about China's military modernisation and in particular about some of the anti-access capabilities that we think we see in the pipeline, but which we understand imperfectly," Schiffer said.

"It is precisely because we seek to avoid the sort of uncertainty and insecurity which if not managed properly can lead to a dangerous and unwanted security competition that we recognise the need to build a healthy military-to-military relationship, ... that as we like to say is sustained, reliable and continuous," he observed.

His remarks came ahead of Defence Secretary Robert Gates' visit to Beijing next week for the bilateral military-to-military dialogue.

China needs to be transparent in defence communication: US
 
.
USA NEED TO BACK OFF ALL ANTI-CHINA POLICIES FIRST. Why should China be transparent to USA since USA considers China is the No.1 Potential enemy of USA? China is so that stupid, also USA is not China's big brother, do they have to report to US congress?
 
.
With US being the number 1 power and not attacking China (because it can could if it wants to), I see no reason why the Chinese have to develop so much military asset anyway. If it does randomly attack China for no reason, the value of US democracy/constitutions and any other things they have been promoting will go to waste immediately. No-one will trust them anymore.
 
.
after revealing a new J-20 and Submarine, we need more transparency?
:yahoo:

uhm... ok... i guess that means they want China to reveal the uber-secret ark project they are building in tibet for 2012?
:coffee: :wave: :wave: :wave:


With US being the number 1 power and not attacking China (because it can could if it wants to), I see no reason why the Chinese have to develop so much military asset anyway.
That is a very ___ statement to make for so many reasons:

1. US Angle:
Iraq happened and so-what? they don't care if the world trust them, the world can't do anything to them.

2. Non-US Angle:
US is not the only country in the world, if another country attack China then what? pray the US help? and if they don't, then what roll over and die? China's experience in WWII where NOBODY HELP it against Japan until Japan attack them convinced Chinese people that G7 is a selfish lot that cannot be depended on for security.

3. National Sovereignty Angle:
Even if there is no war, the ability to show a flag is important as a status symbol, no one is going to attack France but why do France has submarine and carriers? because it is one of the Big 5. China is also one of the Big 5, in fact among the Big 5, it is the only one that does not have a Carrier, so how can they not maintain parity? they are underdeveloped, so they must develop.

4. Technological Angle:
US refusal to sell advanced technology means China has no option but to develop their own technology. this is not a matter of choice, this is due to US policies... if you don't sell fighter to China, than China can only develop their own, it is as simple as that.

5. "Relativity" Angle:
China actually spend quite little on it's military in term of GDP. so it is not even developing "so much". It is merely returning to normal level of spending. another words, it was underspending on it's military in the past decades. how did you think China managed to build up capital and budget surplus? they cut defence in the past decade. but now face with a excess of surplus, returning the military budget to a relativity level is a logical choice, it better than turning them into "treasury bonds".
 
Last edited:
. .
after revealing a new J-20 and Submarine, we need more transparency?
:yahoo:

uhm... ok... i guess that means they want China to reveal the uber-secret ark project they are building in tibet for 2012?
:coffee: :wave: :wave: :wave:


That is a very ___ statement to make for so many reasons:

1. US Angle:
Iraq happened and so-what? they don't care if the world trust them, the world can't do anything to them.

2. Non-US Angle:
US is not the only country in the world, if another country attack China then what? pray the US help? and if they don't, then what roll over and die? China's experience in WWII where NOBODY HELP it against Japan until Japan attack them convinced Chinese people that G7 is a selfish lot that cannot be depended on for security.

3. National Sovereignty Angle:
Even if there is no war, the ability to show a flag is important as a status symbol, no one is going to attack France but why do France has submarine and carriers? because it is one of the Big 5. China is also one of the Big 5, in fact among the Big 5, it is the only one that does not have a Carrier, so how can they not maintain parity? they are underdeveloped, so they must develop.

4. Technological Angle:
US refusal to sell advanced technology means China has no option but to develop their own technology. this is not a matter of choice, this is due to US policies... if you don't sell fighter to China, than China can only develop their own, it is as simple as that.

5. "Relativity" Angle:
China actually spend quite little on it's military in term of GDP. so it is not even developing "so much". It is merely returning to normal level of spending. another words, it was underspending on it's military in the past decades. how did you think China managed to build up capital and budget surplus? they cut defence in the past decade. but now face with a excess of surplus, returning the military budget to a relativity level is a logical choice, it better than turning them into "treasury bonds".

1. ROFL typical. One question: If US has a airforce capable of making the lake of Iraq (just a term, not meant to be offensive), why don't they just do that? Why bother risking their soldier's lives fighting building by building in a counterinsurgency? Why not just carpet bomb Iraq? OH right, they do care about the Iraqi that lives there and their liveslihood. They do care about their values and what the world thinks :tup:
2. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour due to the oil embargo led by America, China, Netherlands and i think the British. Read some history please. If American didn't want to help, why don't they just send some nice hardware to Japan and reap some "imperialist" benefit from it as well?
3. France use to have a large army because they were part of NATO. Against the Soviet Union. My point is: Is France deliberately challenging US on every front? I don't think so. They very well know that their army is a deter-ant to Russian attack. China has been excessively growing their military might to the obvious extent that it is not just a simple buffer (pretty sure u are aware of that) Developing military hardware has also become a major industry. Furthermore, does China have an obvious enemy it needs to counter?
4. Same as above
5. Why don't China spend it on their population? Chinese government recently proposed a national health reform. It is great. However, every1 only gets about one US dollar. A Chinese peasant pays around 10000 yuan for a standard surgery. Why not help these people first instead of developing some massive weaponary when they don't need it?

My point is: People say US is making China their enemy. How is that the case?
 
. .
With US being the number 1 power and not attacking China (because it can could if it wants to), I see no reason why the Chinese have to develop so much military asset anyway. If it does randomly attack China for no reason, the value of US democracy/constitutions and any other things they have been promoting will go to waste immediately. No-one will trust them anymore.
a funny comment!:rofl:you should ask why US have to develop so much military asset.
 
.
For your (warkuo) information, there are still nations in this world that value their independence. States like Britain and Australia choose to be US lapdogs. That is their choice but do not expect everybody else to follow suit.
BTW, judging from your half-cooked English you have to be a naturalized Aussie. Care to share with us your country of origin?
 
. . . .
For now...That would be God. And you are free to petition Him.

Sir Gambit,

I am totally with you on that. USA has every right to demand, protest and ask China to be transparent. But it is up-to China if it actually considers any of USA's requests. Lets be fair both ways.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom