Lecturing China Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I am sure the Chinese will love reading the set of guidelines for their behavior set out by US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in a speech given last night in New York.   According to the Washington Post's account, Zoellick said the Chinese had created a "cauldron of anxiety" about their intentions, and pressed Beijing to:

• Openly explain its defense spending, intentions, doctrine and military exercises to ease concerns about its rapid military buildup.
• Cease its efforts to direct rather than open markets and to "lock up" energy supplies.
• End its tolerance for intellectual property theft.
• Allow its currency to adjust more to market rates.
• Alter its foreign policy to focus less on national interest and more on sustaining peaceful prosperity, through non-proliferation efforts in North Korea and Iraq and by  pledging more money to Afghanistan and Iraq.   Zoellick also decried China's relationships with Sudan and Burma.

It's not that Zoellick's points aren't well taken; most are legitimate.   But I can only imagine if the tables were turned and the Chinese laid out a comprehensive plan for how the U.S. ought to change its behavior.   From what I know, the Chinese hate having positions dictated to them, particularly by the U.S.   

This may go down well with the tough-on-China crowd at home, but its hard to imagine it will have a positive influence on Beijing (so far the Chinese are doing little more than "taking note" of Zoellick's remarks.  But I doubt it will stop at that).

Comments

[doc]

...does the US really have a directed foreign policy? sersiously, it's hard to imagine rove or condi hatching a byzantine plan whereby the chinese react to Zoellick's speech by doing anything other than laughing their collective heads off.

[Greg Priddy]

For once, I completely agree with you... These are valid points, but they should have been made in discussions between government officials behind closed doors -- not in a public forum with a tone of "here's what you must do."

Since Zoellick isn't generally regarded as part of the "tough on China" crowd, one wonders where the impetus for this speech originated -- particularly at a time when the Bush administration is trying to get China's acquiesence on Iran and cooperation vis-a-vis North Korea.

[Steve J]

Perhaps as part of a response to the Chinese playing the same rhetoric game?

China, U.S. trade sharp words
BY: Richard Halloran, Honolulu Advertiser*
07/25/2005

China and the United States fought a verbal skirmish in recent days over the possible use of nuclear weapons against each other, underscoring the often precarious relations between Beijing and Washington.

China fired the first salvo, a belligerent statement on July 15 by Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu to foreign correspondents. Zhu said China would aim nuclear weapons at American cities if U.S. forces intervened in a Chinese assault to prevent Taiwan from turning its de-facto separation from China into formal independence.

The American response on Tuesday was subtle but unmistakable, at the very end of a Pentagon report on China's military power. It warned that China should avoid a conflict over Taiwan involving the United States because that "would give rise to a long-term hostile relationship between the two nations — a result that would not be in China's interests."

In the Beijing briefing arranged by the Foreign Ministry, Zhu said: "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons."

("Position-guided ammunition" looks like a bad translation. and probably meant "precision-guided munitions, or "smart bombs.")

"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," Zhu said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian," an ancient capital in central China. "Of course," he asserted, "the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

The general, dean of Beijing's National Defense University, contended this was his personal view. The Foreign Ministry reinforced that just after the general spoke, suggesting a scripted ploy. No serving officer in China makes policy statements without clearance from the top levels of government.

That led to speculation about what the Chinese were up to. Gen. Zhu, aware that the Pentagon was about to issue a report critical of China's military buildup, may have mounted a pre-emptive strike. As he acknowledged, China lacks the forces to take on the United States with conventional weapons and thus might resort to nuclear arms.

Clearly, however, this was not a new threat. Ten years ago, Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, then a senior officer on China's general staff, issued a similar warning. In the meantime, many Chinese have asserted that Washington would not put an American city at nuclear risk in a conflict over Taiwan and thus would not fight to defend the island.

A former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Dennis Blair, told the Washington Post: "They think it's good to have a mad dog in your closet who might scare your potential adversaries." Blair and other senior U.S. officers have personally but privately cautioned Chinese leaders in recent years not to miscalculate American capabilities and intentions.

Whatever Gen. Zhu's motives, the U.S. government took his threat seriously.

A State Department spokesman called his remarks "highly irresponsible."

The Pentagon's report on Chinese military power, which Congress requires annually, was in preparation long before Zhu issued the nuclear warning. Nonetheless, it noted that China has deployed or is in final development of ballistic missiles that could hit anywhere in the United States and addressed the issues raised by the general, in the context of China's threat to Taiwan.

The report contended that China "does not yet possess the military capability to accomplish with confidence its political objectives on the island, particularly when confronted with outside intervention," meaning by the United States.

Further, a war "could severely retard economic development," the report said, adding that "international sanctions against Beijing, either by individual states or by groups of states, could severely damage Beijing's economic development."

China has claimed spectacular economic growth rates of 7 to 10 percent in recent years.

Politically, a war over Taiwan could "lead to instability on the mainland."

The report noted that a record 58,000 domestic protests, many of them violent, erupted in China last year. A failure in an attack on Taiwan, the report said, "would almost certainly result in severe repercussions" for leaders who had advocated military action.

"If Beijing chose to use force against Taiwan prior to the 2008 Olympics," the Pentagon continued, "China would almost certainly face a boycott or loss of the games." The Olympics are scheduled to be held in Beijing, which Chinese leaders sought to boost their prestige at home and abroad.

The Pentagon's final word was to caution again: "Beijing must calculate the probability of U.S. intervention in any conflict in the Taiwan Strait."

Richard Halloran is a Honolulu-based journalist and former New York Times correspondent in Asia.

[doc]

- Steve j

you may be right: mere posturing on both parts. i mean, the US actually coming to Taiwans' defense? get real...

[J Thomas]

Suppose that the USA and china are heading toward reduced cooperation. They can't afford to have an all-out war because neither wants to get nuked.

The USA wants to cancel our monetary debts to china. China probably wants to stop exporting to us in exchange for worthless paper.

Say they agreed on some pretext for war. Then instead of war the US government announces we'll freeze all chinese assets in the USA etc. We ask our people to give up chinese exports. We maybe stage a short panic talking up the chance that china will nuke us, and make a big deal about how we're ready to nuke them back, and how the reason our nuclear defense mubrella isn't good enough is because we didn't fund it back when we needed to.

Meanwhile china cuts off exports to us and does whatever economic warfare they can think of with their dollar reserves. When we cancel our debt they take this as reason to no longer grant intellectual property rights on US patents etc.

Afterward both sides feel like they're better off. The best possible outcome for a "war". Or maybe we don't feel like we're better off, with china becoming a strong regional power that can face us down, as opposed to an emerging nation that gives us lots of tribute in the form of consumer goods that we "pay for" with waste paper. But it's still a better outcome than losing a real war.

Taiwan? A possible excuse to set it off. Does taiwan have nukes? If they had nukes and we found out we probably wouldn't announce it, it would be a problem for our nonproliferation stand. Would the nationalist government announce it? What for, at most they want to threaten the chinese government, not the world. Would the red chinese announce it? Again what for? So does taiwan have nukes or not? I have no way to know. If they do, china will negotiate with them about reunification. If they don't, does china want to wreck the place taking it over? Unless somebody forces the issue, why not wait instead? In terms of economics or military power china keeps improving relative to taiwan, so the longer they wait the easier it gets....

Unless taiwan is about to get nukes, then maybe china should attack quick. But would taiwan make a nuclear attack on the mainland? It doesn't make sense for them to. Bomb their cousins and get bombed back? What for? If they wait china might get a government they can live with.

It doesn't really make sense for me to suppose that chinese governments are somehow more rational than other governments, but I find I do suppose that and it comforts me. Let's everybody hope I'm right.

[hydrogen bomb the red communist rats in bejing now!]

of course taiwan has atomic weapons...wouldn't you?...would you want to be invaded and later starved to death in a commie gulag...the reds in summer of 1989 ran over students in tianamen square with tanks and apcs killed them live on cnn!...athiest reds are frightened by the bomb! they don't believe in heaven...christians do...the reds will back down in nuclear chicken!...they are stupid cowards the maoist redguard generation is adult today...mindless rats who need to be nuked to shattered green obsidian!...preemptive first strike those red rats in north korea!...threaten the reds daily with the holy hydrogen bomb! pray to the holy bomb like its beneath the planet of the apes movie! there can be no peace while red communism still infests asia like rabid red rats! -the twilight's last gleaming-milwaukee wisconsin

[twilight's last gleaming]

taiwan also has chemical and biological weapons to exterminate any red communist rats invading from that vile gulag red china! tactical nukes will but their evil commie faces off! maoist evil still infests china like red rats! nuclear weapons is the holy weapon to cleanse that red rathole bejing! die you red commies burn in nuclear hellfire! all you rotten single one children will be nuked to atomic molten slag! start a nuclear war with the usa over taiwan you commie red cowards go right ahead! let's have a nuclear war today you athiest commie red rats! die you maoist murderers and brainwashed marxist cowards! die in a hydrogen bomb fireball if you dare attack free taiwan! live in fear and remember nagasaki and hiroshima! bejing and 200 other red rat chinese cities are next! die! die! die! you filthy commies!-twilight's last gleaming-milwaukee wisconsin usa

[twilight's last gleaming]

taiwan also has chemical and biological weapons to exterminate any red communist rats invading from that vile gulag red china! tactical nukes will but their evil commie faces off! maoist evil still infests china like red rats! nuclear weapons is the holy weapon to cleanse that red rathole bejing! die you red commies burn in nuclear hellfire! all you rotten single one children will be nuked to atomic molten slag! start a nuclear war with the usa over taiwan you commie red cowards go right ahead! let's have a nuclear war today you athiest commie red rats! die you maoist murderers and brainwashed marxist cowards! die in a hydrogen bomb fireball if you dare attack free taiwan! live in fear and remember nagasaki and hiroshima! bejing and 200 other red rat chinese cities are next! die! die! die! you filthy commies!-twilight's last gleaming-milwaukee wisconsin usa

[twilight's last gleaming]

taiwan also has chemical and biological weapons to exterminate any red communist rats invading from that vile gulag red china! tactical nukes will but their evil commie faces off! maoist evil still infests china like red rats! nuclear weapons is the holy weapon to cleanse that red rathole bejing! die you red commies burn in nuclear hellfire! all you rotten single one children will be nuked to atomic molten slag! start a nuclear war with the usa over taiwan you commie red cowards go right ahead! let's have a nuclear war today you athiest commie red rats! die you maoist murderers and brainwashed marxist cowards! die in a hydrogen bomb fireball if you dare attack free taiwan! live in fear and remember nagasaki and hiroshima! bejing and 200 other red rat chinese cities are next! die! die! die! you filthy commies!-twilight's last gleaming-milwaukee wisconsin usa

[Designer Givenchy Replica]

die you maoist murderers and brainwashed marxist cowards! die in a hydrogen bomb fireball if you dare attack free taiwan! live in fear and remember nagasaki and hiroshima! bejing and 200 other red rat chinese cities are next! die! die! die! you filthy commies!-twilight's last gleaming-milwaukee wisconsin