What's new

Now Gates warns of leadership 'disconnect' in China

I guess he needed something to distract the public away from his intel and defense screw ups. He gave the green light to axe the F-22, cut back on F-35 and was left in awe when China flew the J-20 over his head. It is not the first time they got information about other countries wrong and looking stupid and it will not be the last. ;)

In other words Gates claim amounts to another currency bill
 
.
In other words Gates claim amounts to another currency bill

No, I bet Americans understand the pre-visit spike of the Chinese currency before Hu's visit is as much as they can get. Americans are not Indians.
 
.
Two observations.

1) Times of India really is a giant turd of a journalist establishment.

While i do agree with you that the ToI does not represent the epitome of journalistic excellence, "The Economist" has also reported the same. No trying to be insensitive or trying to point fingers i am just posting the article to reaffirm the point just made. Had not posted the article originally as it might have lead to flame war, as is usually the case.


Another go at being friends
A troubled year gives way to handshakes, but tensions between the United States and China are likely to grow


CHINA’S President Hu Jintao arrives in America on January 18th for a welcome at the White House, full of pomp and pageantry, that American presidents seldom lay on even for the closest of friends. After an unusually rocky year in their relations, both China and the United States hope for respite. But mutual wariness is growing, thanks not least to China’s hawkish army.

The role in Chinese policymaking of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA, which includes the navy and air force) is only dimly understood by outsiders. But the PLA is clearly far less eager than the civilian leadership to mix with America. It needed persuading to acquiesce to a visit to Beijing by America’s defence secretary, Robert Gates, from January 9th to 12th, his first to the country in three years.

China’s leaders apparently hoped that Mr Gates’s trip would help restore a semblance of normality to the two countries’ ties as Mr Hu prepared for his American visit. Mr Hu is no America-lover himself, but like his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, he enjoys being received by the superpower with full ceremonial honours. When Mr Hu last went to Washington, DC, in 2006, China called it a state visit but the White House called it an official one, implying a slightly lesser grade. This time both agree it is a state one, which means all the razzmatazz of a dinner at the White House.

Allowing Mr Gates to visit at all was a concession. China had cut off top-level military exchanges with America in January 2010, in response to Barack Obama’s approval of $6.4 billion of arms sales to Taiwan. Mr Gates had hoped to visit China last June. After being rebuffed, he said he was “disappointed” that the PLA had “not seen the same potential benefits from this kind of military-to-military relationship” as the country’s civilian leaders.

Despite China’s increasingly assertive military posture in the western Pacific, a region where America’s armed forces have long held sway, communication between the two sides is minimal at the best of times. During Mr Gates’s last visit to Beijing, his hosts agreed to set up a hotline between the Pentagon and China’s defence ministry. In 2009 it proved useless when tempers flared over a standoff between Chinese boats and an American surveillance vessel in the South China Sea.

Just as worryingly, communication between China’s leadership and the PLA appeared to Americans to be faulty, of which a striking indication came while Mr Gates was in Beijing. During a meeting with Mr Hu, Mr Gates mentioned the test flight earlier in the day of a Chinese stealth fighter, the J-20, China’s first aircraft supposed to evade radar. Speculation about progress on the highly secretive project has intensified with the appearance online of photographs of a J-20 at an airfield. The flight on January 11th, video of which appeared on unofficial websites, was the first ever reported. But Mr Hu and other officials in the room appeared to be unaware of it, a Pentagon official claims.

If so, an interpretation is that this was a slap to Mr Hu, who as chairman of the Communist Party’s Central Military Commission is supposed to be in charge of the armed forces. Mr Gates said later he had had “concerns over time” about the PLA acting independently of the political leadership. All the more important, he said, to set up a security-related dialogue between the two countries involving both civilian and military officials.

Mr Gates wants a regular forum at which the two sides discuss issues such as nuclear weapons, missile defence, cyber-warfare and space. The Chinese show polite interest, but have given no commitment. Michael Swaine of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says such talks are not bound to take place; the two countries’ armed forces are growing “increasingly suspicious” of one another.

A chief Pentagon concern is China’s development and purchase of missiles making it more difficult for American aircraft carriers to operate in the western Pacific. The missiles include the DF-21D, a medium-range ballistic missile. In December the head of the United States Pacific Command, Admiral Robert Willard, said that the DF-21D had reached “initial operating capability”. The weapon would use data fed by satellites and other surveillance devices to home in on a moving carrier more than 1,500km (930 miles) offshore. Pentagon officials say work on the DF-21D (which would be the first such missile deployed by any army) and the J-20 fighter has progressed faster than they had expected. China is also reportedly close to deploying its first aircraft carrier, a refitted ex-Soviet ship. It may be a long time before any of these can challenge America’s military domination of the Pacific, but they may constrain what the United States can do in waters around China—and Taiwan.

Of the three developments, the DF-21D is the greatest worry to the Americans. Their Aegis missile defence system, deployed to protect American carrier groups, is designed to track a missile’s trajectory from launch. The DF-21D is supposed to be able to change course in mid-flight so as to evade Aegis interceptors. Lockheed Martin, which makes the Aegis system, is trying to come up with a fix. As for the J-20, some scepticism is in order. Although the design has stealth characteristics, its large nose canards, big engine intakes and fixed-thrust nozzles suggest the Chinese have a long way to go before they have a plane that is close to America’s F-22—call them the PLA’s “three shames”.

In America Mr Hu will be at China’s usual pains to stress it wants only peace. He will highlight China’s “soft power”, a concept he began publicly embracing in 2007. Mr Hu plans to visit a Chinese-owned factory making car parts and a school where Chinese is taught with support from China. Yet any cheer Mr Hu generates between the two governments could prove short-lived. Qu Xing of the China Institute of International Studies says the visit will mark the end of a downturn in relations. But, he says, unless America learns to respect China’s “core interests”, another will surely come.

Wary detente between China and America: Another go at being friends | The Economist



2) Gates is going into overdrive mode on China issues as he is winding down his tenure as the def sec. While most people would agree Gates has done very very well as the def sec. on middle east issues, most people would also agree he's failed utterly when it comes to dealing with China. He's realizes now that as the China's impact on the future grows, this might the stain on his legacy that will be most visible in the next century.

Gates did try to mend fences with China by rooting for constant interaction between the armed forces of both the countries to help build confidabce and trust but the PLA simply refused to meet him. Defense exchanges were kept suspended for nearly a year & Gates was given the cold shoulder even during his recent trip to Beijing.

So if by your standards, Gates has failed to engage China constructively. I would strongly recommend a rethink.
 
.
Two observations.

1) Times of India really is a giant turd of a journalist establishment.

And why would this observation come up in this ??

For simply publishing some thing anti-China or do you have the original press transcript of Mr.Gates to think that ToI has 'inserted' its own views ?
 
.
No, I bet Americans understand the pre-visit spike of the Chinese currency before Hu's visit is as much as they can get. Americans are not Indians.

mmmm but the Americans failed to get pre visit spike in renminbi :azn:
 
.
And why would this observation come up in this ??

For simply publishing some thing anti-China or do you have the original press transcript of Mr.Gates to think that ToI has 'inserted' its own views ?

ToI does not have its own views.

If I am gusty enough to say this myself, would anyone believe me? :rofl:
 
.
mmmm but the Americans failed to get pre visit spike in renminbi :azn:

They've already got it, well, Republicans, not the poor democrats. I bet it's worth several billion USD. (pure guess, not to be presented in a pure academic environment. :azn:)
If RMB is appreciating against USD, someone is selling USD and buying RMB, well, obviously american companies are sellers and Bank of People is taking in RMB. No one can dictate market, it can only be manipulated.
 
.
They've already got it, well, Republicans, not the poor democrats. I bet it's worth several billion USD. (pure guess, not to be presented in a pure academic environment. :azn:)

When was that ?? as far as we know the Americans Senators tried to play that card but not yet succeeded. :D seems Americans wont be able to pay the debt in cheaper dollar
 
.
When was that ?? as far as we know the Americans Senators tried to play that card but not yet succeeded. :D seems Americans wont be able to pay the debt in cheaper dollar

There is a little spike of RMB vs Dollar in the news for the past couple of weeks. They don't care that much about potential increased American exports to the Chinese, they care more about the profits obtained in China in RMB dominated assets and convert that back to Dollar terms. Since American companies will have to settle everything back into USD to determine profit/loss. If RMB spikes a little, they can convert their RMB dominated assets (money made in China) back to USD.

In order words, The Chinese is selling USD back to US at a cheap price. The gainer is the American companies, and the loser is the Chinese government. I bet it might be in the range of a few billion USD's.

Appreciating Chinese RMB is not in the interest of Chinese export companies as well as the Chinese government.
 
.
Gates did try to mend fences with China by rooting for constant interaction between the armed forces of both the countries to help build confidabce and trust but the PLA simply refused to meet him. Defense exchanges were kept suspended for nearly a year & Gates was given the cold shoulder even during his recent trip to Beijing.

So if by your standards, Gates has failed to engage China constructively. I would strongly recommend a rethink.

Actually, China had a good reason to deny American visits. They know very well that China considers Taiwan to be an integral part of China. The weapon sale to Taiwan is an obvious act to seperate Taiwan from China. Imagine China selling arms to Hawaii if they were to seek independance from the United States. Would they be happy with that? I don't think so.
 
.
Actually, China had a good reason to deny American visits. They know very well that China considers Taiwan to be an integral part of China. The weapon sale to Taiwan is an obvious act to seperate Taiwan from China. Imagine China selling arms to Hawaii if they were to seek independance from the United States. Would they be happy with that? I don't think so.

Forget it, according to those two I am unqualified to have my own opinion on what journalistic integrity is and good luck convincing them that there are barriers both sides responsible for tepid military exchange.
 
.
Actually, China had a good reason to deny American visits. They know very well that China considers Taiwan to be an integral part of China. The weapon sale to Taiwan is an obvious act to seperate Taiwan from China. Imagine China selling arms to Hawaii if they were to seek independance from the United States. Would they be happy with that? I don't think so.

Firstly, I was just contesting the claim of the earlier poster who stated that the news about the "leadership disconnect in China" was poor journalism by Times of India. The Economist, also having reported the same seems to have taken the wind out of his sales.

Ya i know the reason why Gates was not allowed to visit Beijing. While it is up to Beijing as to whom they talk to or not, just putting the blame for bad relations squarely on the shoulders of Robert Gates is not fair. The part that the PLA leadership played in contaminating the atmosphere also has to be looked at objectively. Being patriotic by overlooking the mistakes of your own people is simply the wrong way to look at things i.e provided you want good relations with the US & other countries.

Lastly, I would also like to draw attention to your argument that the Chinese are angry at the Americans for selling weapons to Taiwan and a strong reaction in that sense is justified. Now for a moment just think over and imagine how we felt when your government gave nuclear weapons & missiles to Pakistan. Not conventional weapons like what the US gave to Taiwan but nuclear weapons & missiles. What should India's reaction be? How angry should we be? You chaps sound mighty pissed with just conventional weapons; put nukes in the picture and imagine our reaction!!
 
.
Firstly, I was just contesting the claim of the earlier poster who stated that the news about the "leadership disconnect in China" was poor journalism by Times of India. The Economist, also having reported the same seems to have taken the wind out of his sales.

Ya i know the reason why Gates was not allowed to visit Beijing. While it is up to Beijing as to whom they talk to or not, just putting the blame for bad relations squarely on the shoulders of Robert Gates is not fair. The part that the PLA leadership played in contaminating the atmosphere also has to be looked at objectively. Being patriotic by overlooking the mistakes of your own people is simply the wrong way to look at things i.e provided you want good relations with the US & other countries.

Lastly, I would also like to draw attention to your argument that the Chinese are angry at the Americans for selling weapons to Taiwan and a strong reaction in that sense is justified. Now for a moment just think over and imagine how we felt when your government gave nuclear weapons & missiles to Pakistan. Not conventional weapons like what the US gave to Taiwan but nuclear weapons & missiles. What should India's reaction be? How angry should we be? You chaps sound mighty pissed with just conventional weapons; put nukes in the picture and imagine our reaction!!

It is not about patriotism, it's about common sense. The world have seen long enough how the US likes to stick its nose into everyone elses business. I thought US is the global police to instill peace and security? If that's the case then this police must be a corrupt one. Surely the sale of arms at a global scale isn't going to promote peace.

Yes India has its concerns about Pakistan obtaining nuclear technology, however there is a huge difference between Pakistan and Taiwan. Pakistan is an independent country whereby Taiwan isn't. Taiwan is a rogue state trying to break away from China.

As for contamination of the worlds atmosphere, that is hugely debatable. The west and the US has been there and done that and will always have a target to point there fingers at.
What you must remember is China has the largest population in the world, and when a country of this size grow and move in and out of industrialization, it will of course produce waste.
At the end of the day, how many countries are benefitting from China as we speak? The issue on the rare earth minerals comes to mind. Why don't America and countries around the world open up their own mines? that's because they know it is dirty and a costly business. So why bother when we can get them from China for cheap?

Just wait until India gets industrialized, we will see where the axe will fall on top of then. Perhaps then you will see where I am getting at.
 
.
It is not about patriotism, it's about common sense. The world have seen long enough how the US likes to stick its nose into everyone elses business. I thought US is the global police to instill peace and security? If that's the case then this police must be a corrupt one. Surely the sale of arms at a global scale isn't going to promote peace.

As for contamination of the worlds atmosphere, that is hugely debatable. The west and the US has been there and done that and will always have a target to point there fingers at.
What you must remember is China has the largest population in the world, and when a country of this size grow and move in and out of industrialization, it will of course produce waste.
At the end of the day, how many countries are benefitting from China as we speak? The issue on the rare earth minerals comes to mind. Why don't America and countries around the world open up their own mines? that's because they know it is dirty and a costly business. So why bother when we can get them from China for cheap?

Just wait until India gets industrialized, we will see where the axe will fall on top of then. Perhaps then you will see where I am getting at.


While i don't agree with you point of view, you are entitled to your opinion about the US. What is more interesting to me is your answer on the Pakistan's nukes!!



Yes India has its concerns about Pakistan obtaining nuclear technology, however there is a huge difference between Pakistan and Taiwan. Pakistan is an independent country whereby Taiwan isn't. Taiwan is a rogue state trying to break away from China.

This is classic hypocrisy - you seem to be skirting the issue of the supply of nuclear weapons to Pakistan by your government which by the way violated all international norms. I don't see even a faint hint in your argument disapproving it, any objectivity if at all is missing. and people wonder why India does not trust China!!
 
.
Firstly, I was just contesting the claim of the earlier poster who stated that the news about the "leadership disconnect in China" was poor journalism by Times of India. The Economist, also having reported the same seems to have taken the wind out of his sales.

Ya i know the reason why Gates was not allowed to visit Beijing. While it is up to Beijing as to whom they talk to or not, just putting the blame for bad relations squarely on the shoulders of Robert Gates is not fair. The part that the PLA leadership played in contaminating the atmosphere also has to be looked at objectively. Being patriotic by overlooking the mistakes of your own people is simply the wrong way to look at things i.e provided you want good relations with the US & other countries.

Lastly, I would also like to draw attention to your argument that the Chinese are angry at the Americans for selling weapons to Taiwan and a strong reaction in that sense is justified. Now for a moment just think over and imagine how we felt when your government gave nuclear weapons & missiles to Pakistan. Not conventional weapons like what the US gave to Taiwan but nuclear weapons & missiles. What should India's reaction be? How angry should we be? You chaps sound mighty pissed with just conventional weapons; put nukes in the picture and imagine our reaction!!


The big different between you India and Pakistan is both of you are a independent country but the relationship between China and taiwan are they are a country means that taiwan is just a province/part of China.Think before you write the trash out and you can check it out because UN does not define taiwan as a country .Nobody will happy if someone try to separate your own country.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom