Of Dragons and Eagles: johnny's thesis.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
28 minutes for the whole thread? If so, that's some pretty swift reading dude, nice one! Here's some more for ya! 
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...7/first-plenary-session--the-hon-robert-gates
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ession-speeches-2007/first-plenary-session-qa
...............
The United States shares common interests with China on issues like terrorism, counter proliferation, and energy security. But we are concerned about the opaqueness of Beijing’s military spending and modernization programs – issues described in the annual report on the Chinese armed forces recently released by the U.S. government. But as General Pete Pace, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out, there is some difference between “capacity” and “intent.” And I believe there is reason to be optimistic about the U.S. – China relationship.
We have increased military-to-military contacts between all levels of our militaries, most recently dramatized when General Pace sat in the cockpit of the top-of-the-line Chinese fighter during his last visit. We obviously have a huge economic and trade relationship. Indeed, I have been told that if just one American company – Wal-Mart – was a country, it would be China’s eighth largest trading partner. The second meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue concluded last week in Washington, D.C. -- a process designed to improve our economic bilateral relationship. As we gain experience in dealing with each other, relationships can be forged that will build trust over time.
.......................
Tired, time for bed. More tomorrow.
THE UNITED STATES AND ASIA-PACIFIC SECURITY
The Hon Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, US
The Hon Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, US
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...7/first-plenary-session--the-hon-robert-gates
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ession-speeches-2007/first-plenary-session-qa
...............
The United States shares common interests with China on issues like terrorism, counter proliferation, and energy security. But we are concerned about the opaqueness of Beijing’s military spending and modernization programs – issues described in the annual report on the Chinese armed forces recently released by the U.S. government. But as General Pete Pace, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out, there is some difference between “capacity” and “intent.” And I believe there is reason to be optimistic about the U.S. – China relationship.
We have increased military-to-military contacts between all levels of our militaries, most recently dramatized when General Pace sat in the cockpit of the top-of-the-line Chinese fighter during his last visit. We obviously have a huge economic and trade relationship. Indeed, I have been told that if just one American company – Wal-Mart – was a country, it would be China’s eighth largest trading partner. The second meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue concluded last week in Washington, D.C. -- a process designed to improve our economic bilateral relationship. As we gain experience in dealing with each other, relationships can be forged that will build trust over time.
.......................
Tired, time for bed. More tomorrow.
pike409
Banned
28 minutes for the whole thread? If so, that's some pretty swift reading dude, nice one! Here's some more for ya!
THE UNITED STATES AND ASIA-PACIFIC SECURITY
The Hon Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, US
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...7/first-plenary-session--the-hon-robert-gates
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ession-speeches-2007/first-plenary-session-qa
...............
The United States shares common interests with China on issues like terrorism, counter proliferation, and energy security. But we are concerned about the opaqueness of Beijing’s military spending and modernization programs – issues described in the annual report on the Chinese armed forces recently released by the U.S. government. But as General Pete Pace, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out, there is some difference between “capacity” and “intent.” And I believe there is reason to be optimistic about the U.S. – China relationship.
We have increased military-to-military contacts between all levels of our militaries, most recently dramatized when General Pace sat in the cockpit of the top-of-the-line Chinese fighter during his last visit. We obviously have a huge economic and trade relationship. Indeed, I have been told that if just one American company – Wal-Mart – was a country, it would be China’s eighth largest trading partner. The second meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue concluded last week in Washington, D.C. -- a process designed to improve our economic bilateral relationship. As we gain experience in dealing with each other, relationships can be forged that will build trust over time.
.......................
Tired, time for bed. More tomorrow.
haha yeah i read it but doesnt really mean i understood it haha sorry
really interesting though...again great job
top work johnny.
Especially interested in "Non-Conventional Weapons: The Assassin’s Mace" realted stuff as i had no real idea what was going on in regards to this previously.
Just a few quick questions;
To what extent is China a protecting force when it comes to Africa? ("China’s engagement and protection of Africa as an energy supplier" in China and Africa section)
and
What do you think of the bilateral relationship between Russia and China that you mentioned (1991)? Has it deteriorated to a face-value agreement, is it in place to ward of conflict? When was the last time it was updated/reviewed by both sides?
Can't imagine having to write a thesis...go team science degree (just have to work my ass off to get into honors.... )
Especially interested in "Non-Conventional Weapons: The Assassin’s Mace" realted stuff as i had no real idea what was going on in regards to this previously.
Just a few quick questions;
To what extent is China a protecting force when it comes to Africa? ("China’s engagement and protection of Africa as an energy supplier" in China and Africa section)
and
What do you think of the bilateral relationship between Russia and China that you mentioned (1991)? Has it deteriorated to a face-value agreement, is it in place to ward of conflict? When was the last time it was updated/reviewed by both sides?
Can't imagine having to write a thesis...go team science degree (just have to work my ass off to get into honors....
)
China pretty much limits its protection of particular African states to diplomatic protection in the United Nations Security Council. THey do this by either not proposing, backing or supporting, and some times even vetoing resolutions to sanction such states as Sudan. But as has been seen recently, China has bowed a little because the world opinion against Sudan (because of the alleged genocide in Darfour (sp)) is so strong that it is almost strategically impossible for China to hold out. So they have sent some of their own peace keepers there and have urged the government in Khatoum (sp) to accept African Union peace keepers.
China offers financial protection to resource rich African states by way of loans, grants and investment. Another form of support is the sale of military kit when most other western or technologically advanced countries refuse to out of ethical/moral reasons. But, China will do this with anyone that isn't a strategic opponent of China, so it may be a bit misleading to make out that China does this as support for these countries. It's a bit of both really; for China, it's just business. "You want what we got, we'll sell it to you, no questions asked". Secondly, they will also sell these things to the governments, possibly at a reduced cost, as to get into bed with them and allow China to set up shop there.
And this is exactly what China does. It supplies its own truck drivers for transport, workers for mines and drilling rigs, road builders for the transportation routes, its own ships and crews, etc. etc. This does a number of things; first and foremost, it gives security to China's investment. It means that any labour laws that the Africans may have do not apply to the Chinese workers; minimal wages, work place safety laws, additional benefits, unions and industrial disputes etc. Secondly, it gives security in the fact that these are Chinese poeple that won't mix with the local population and there will be less of a threat from extortion such as walk outs, thefts and industrial espionage. Thirdly, it also aids Chinese employment in general. China employs its own security guards over there. They are actually Chinese soldiers in civilian uniforms. This also has a number of benefits in the way that if there is local instability and some kind of civil conflict breaks out, you have highly trained and cohesive units to protect the Chinese investment. Also, this means that the workers and security guards won't be pulled off the job and sent to war or even just run home to protect their family. The war could rage for years and kill almost every Sudanese, but China would keep shipping out its oil, iron ore, phosphates etc. till there is none left. this is true resource security. Secondly, by having the PLA soldiers there you have a known force who's simple presence instills disipline and rule among the Chinese workers. It also guards against inside jobs for theft and attack etc.
However, these methods are starting to upset some African nationalists. The African countries are not getting any jobs out of it, more Chinese migrants are moving to Africa and taking jobs and China is exporting huge amounts of cheap goods to Africa and putting domestic manufacturers and distributers out of business. China must be sensitive to these issues or it can face some complications and a reduction in resource security.
This is probably one of the most, if not the single most important relationship China has in the East Aisa/West Pacific region. Therefore, it is always kept current. AS per the SCO (mentioned at length in the thesis) China and Russia have deep interconnectedness and possibly interdependence. The interdependence is that Russia is one of the only countries in the world with technology that can defeat the US war machine (or is capable of doing so anyway). Other countries such as the EU (not a country, I know) have this type of technology but the US makes them uphold an old and obselete EU ruling that proscribed arms trade with China because of the Tiananmen "incident" in 1989. So, China is a major market for Russia, who desparately needs the business and Russia is a supplier of arms to China who desparately needs the technology to catch up to the developed world.
Also, if China is going to balance against the US it will definately need Russia on its side. Russia still has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world and also has a massive army. China will also look to incorporate all of its imediate neighbours into its exclusive sphere if influence as to stop the US from gaining an ally right on their border.
So in summary, the relationship between Russia and China is a strong one and will only get stronger. Gone are the days from the fall out between Russia and China of the 60s and so on. There was the ideological split when both countries wanted to be the big brother and also the issue of bad mouthing Stalin (I think that was Brezhnev), and the border issues. These are seriously long gone, they need each other. Look to the recent excercise they both held (metioned in Thesis) near the Taiwan Straites. The message to the US couldn't be any clearer; "Fuck with me and you fuck with him too".
PINT of Stella. mate!
Many, many Scotches
fascinating stuff. I never realised China's influence in Africa was so large (other than selling cheap machetes and AK47 copies.) Is it just Sudan where the Chinese have a large presence or are they active in other nations? They seem to have been frozen out of the oil industry in Angola and Nigeria. It's pretty much US and European influence there...
The Hon Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, US
Ctnd...
Yao Youzhi, Senior Colonel, Academy of Military Sciences, People’s Liberation Army
Mr Secretary, you mentioned in your presentation that the multilateral relations between China and the United States has made some very encouraging progress recently, but you still have some concerns about the Chinese military’s lack of transparency. You also mentioned that you think some of the Cold War approaches are still relevant in coping with today’s security threats.
My question is: do you think there are still any Cold War approaches that are valid or relevant in coping with US concerns about China in general and about the Chinese military in particular? Also, do you think there are other approaches, post-Cold War approaches, that the United States should adopt in dealing with multilateral relations between China and the United States? Thank you.
Dr Robert Gates
The reference that I made to some lessons learned from the Cold War really were directed more at how we combat radical extremism than in dealing with state-to-state relationships. What I was referring to, among other things, was recognition that like during the Cold War, it is an ideological struggle against these radical extremists; it is a struggle that will take many decades; and it is a struggle that will require many nations working together. It seemed to me that those were the principal lessons that can be drawn from the Cold War in terms of dealing with radical extremism. That was the context in which I described it.
My own view is that one of the ways in which conflict was prevented during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was a steadily growing range of interactions, first diplomatic and then in the military sphere. I have always believed that the years-long negotiations on strategic arms limitations may or may not have made much of a contribution in terms of limiting arms, but they played an extraordinarily valuable role in creating better understanding on both the Soviet and American sides about what the strategic intentions of each side were; what the strategic thinking was; what their motives were; where they were headed.
That dialogue, which continued intensively for something like 20 years, built a cadre of people who were accustomed to working and talking with one another, people who were on opposite sides of a major conflict. While we have no conflict at this point, this kind of transparency, this kind of discussion, is the kind of thing that prevents miscalculation and helps each side understand where the other is headed and what its intentions are. That kind of dialogue, whether or not it involves specific proposals for arms control or anything else, I think is immensely valuable. I think it is one of the great assets of the developing military-to-military dialogue between the United States and the People’s Republic.
.............
There were a few more questions relating to China and the region, but they were of no real substance.
Ctnd...
Yao Youzhi, Senior Colonel, Academy of Military Sciences, People’s Liberation Army
Mr Secretary, you mentioned in your presentation that the multilateral relations between China and the United States has made some very encouraging progress recently, but you still have some concerns about the Chinese military’s lack of transparency. You also mentioned that you think some of the Cold War approaches are still relevant in coping with today’s security threats.
My question is: do you think there are still any Cold War approaches that are valid or relevant in coping with US concerns about China in general and about the Chinese military in particular? Also, do you think there are other approaches, post-Cold War approaches, that the United States should adopt in dealing with multilateral relations between China and the United States? Thank you.
Dr Robert Gates
The reference that I made to some lessons learned from the Cold War really were directed more at how we combat radical extremism than in dealing with state-to-state relationships. What I was referring to, among other things, was recognition that like during the Cold War, it is an ideological struggle against these radical extremists; it is a struggle that will take many decades; and it is a struggle that will require many nations working together. It seemed to me that those were the principal lessons that can be drawn from the Cold War in terms of dealing with radical extremism. That was the context in which I described it.
My own view is that one of the ways in which conflict was prevented during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was a steadily growing range of interactions, first diplomatic and then in the military sphere. I have always believed that the years-long negotiations on strategic arms limitations may or may not have made much of a contribution in terms of limiting arms, but they played an extraordinarily valuable role in creating better understanding on both the Soviet and American sides about what the strategic intentions of each side were; what the strategic thinking was; what their motives were; where they were headed.
That dialogue, which continued intensively for something like 20 years, built a cadre of people who were accustomed to working and talking with one another, people who were on opposite sides of a major conflict. While we have no conflict at this point, this kind of transparency, this kind of discussion, is the kind of thing that prevents miscalculation and helps each side understand where the other is headed and what its intentions are. That kind of dialogue, whether or not it involves specific proposals for arms control or anything else, I think is immensely valuable. I think it is one of the great assets of the developing military-to-military dialogue between the United States and the People’s Republic.
.............
There were a few more questions relating to China and the region, but they were of no real substance.
INDIA AND CHINA: BUILDING INTERNATIONAL STABILITY
Lt Gen Zhang Qinsheng, Deputy Chief of the General Staff, People's Republic of China
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the.../second-plenary-session--lt-gen-zhang-qinshen
.............
- Asia-Pacific countries mutually respect the right of others to independently choose their political model and manage to maintain internal harmony and stability; [Message to the US,; don't encourage us to democratise and keep your Human Rights moralising to yourself]
- Asia Pacific countries actively promote liberalisation of trade and investment and make efforts to shape a fair and square rational and open international trade environment; [We are the biggest export and import market in the region, therefore liberal and free markets are in our interests!!]
- in order to maintain their shared interests and in the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, Asia Pacific countries tend to settle frictions and disputes peacefully; and, [Because conflict will destabilise our ever so lucrative markets and disrupt our growth]
- Asia Pacific countries cooperate to cope with challenges and risks, and to maintain a stable secure environment for common prosperity. [We don't need outside assistance with our dommestic issues, thanks very much for your offer but fark off]
..............
Peaceful Development in China
China is different from the rising powers in the history as it has chosen the path of peaceful development. The soul of this policy is that China strives for a peaceful international environment to develop and, at the same time, develops itself to better contribute to world peace. Peaceful development is not a makeshift, but a serious choice and pledge of the Chinese Government and people.
China, all along, adheres to a defence policy which is defensive in nature. The fundamentals of the policy are: to maintain sovereignty and territorial integrity and ensure the nation prosper in a peaceful environment; to perform homeland defence and resist a foreign invasion; to moderately enhance defence capabilities to deal with the multiple security threats, and cope with crisis, maintain peace, deter and, if necessary, win the war.
Characters of the Chinese Defence Policy
Self-defence
The Chinese defence policy is characterised as the following: first, it is for self-defence. Strategically we adhere to defence, self-defence and would win by striking only after the enemy has struck. China shall never fire the first shot. Such an approach is consistent with the ancient Chinese thought to use caution before getting into a war - use force only for a just cause, put people first, and cherish life.
Independent Defence
Second, it aims for independent defence. We would secure the country with our own capabilities, without joining any form of military alliance with any countries. We independently develop national defence industries, and the defence science and technology sector. We independently handle military-to-military affairs while balancing national interests, regional interests and global interests.
Limited Military Power
Third, it is aimed to achieve limited military power. We always put national sovereignty and territory integrity first, but not seek absolute military dominance. We are committed to developing a smaller but highly capably military force in a unique Chinese way and to promote all-round balanced and sustainable defence and military development. We continue to embrace the longstanding nuclear policy of no first use, will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nuclear weapon-free countries and zones.
A Peace Policy
Fourth, it is a peace policy. We make regional and world peace one of the objectives of the Chinese defence policy, and handle the military-to-military relations in light of the principles of mutual respect, equal consultation, mutual benefit, reciprocity, cooperation and win-win. We would seek common ground while shelving differences and promote harmony and amity with all countries. We are committed to developing non-alignment, non-confrontational mutual cooperation, which does not direct against a third party.
................
The Chinese Defence Budget
Strict Legal Procedures
Here I would comment on the suspicion over the Chinese military transparency and defence budget. Regarding the defence budget, I have three comments to offer. First, in China defence budgeting follows a set of highly strict legal procedures, and the published defence budget is true and authentic. [I am sorry, but I do not believe this. My thesis mentions the cross over between private R&D and the PLA, it also metions barter systems of acquirement with Russia etc.]
Logistics
Second, the increased proportion of the budget is mostly used to make up the retail price, improve welfare of the military personnel, and for better logistical support. [A huge amount of the modernisation process has been directed toward personel, pay and living standards as per the PLA's claim]
Relatively Small Expenditure
Third, given the multiple security threats we face, the geopolitical environment, the size of the territory and the per capita expense, the Chinese defence expenditure is fairly small by all judgments. [This is also true, check the data in my chapter of the PLA. As a percentage of the GDP, China spends fark all compared to the US..., who of course are the loudest when complaining about the PLA budget.]
Military Transparency
Regarding military transparency, I think that due to differences in history, culture, social system and ideology, countries naturally disagree on what transparency means, and how to achieve it. Nothing in this world is absolute. Transparency is a relative concept too. More importantly, the growth of a country's military power is a dynamic process full of changeable factors, which is difficult to be valued precisely so it takes time to achieve transparency.
Anyhow, it is obvious to all that China is gradually making progress in military transparency, in light of the principles of trust, responsibility, security, and quality.
Conclusion
We propose countries strengthen information sharing and intelligence cooperation, establish an early warning system for crisis and emergencies; enhance coordination and cooperation among functional organisations; facilitate visits, academic exchange, joint training and exercise among the military forces so as to enhance mutual understanding and trust; and strengthen their capabilities to jointly deal with new threats and challenges.
Peace is a precondition of Asia Pacific development, a fundamental interest of the people in this region. I love the idea of the human society and, therefore, the ultimate pursuit of all of us in uniform, as long as the Asia Pacific countries are committed to better welfare of their peoples, and committed to regional people and development we will be able to bring lasting peace and common prosperity to the region. China has every confidence to make this dream come true.
As per much of China's public proclamations, this one was highly rhetorical with much symbolic language. They talk mostly of openness between countries through dialogue that will create trust; multilateralism that will encourage countries to work with each other instead of against and a stabile Asia Pacific region.
Lt Gen Zhang Qinsheng, Deputy Chief of the General Staff, People's Republic of China
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the.../second-plenary-session--lt-gen-zhang-qinshen
.............
- Asia-Pacific countries mutually respect the right of others to independently choose their political model and manage to maintain internal harmony and stability; [Message to the US,; don't encourage us to democratise and keep your Human Rights moralising to yourself]
- Asia Pacific countries actively promote liberalisation of trade and investment and make efforts to shape a fair and square rational and open international trade environment; [We are the biggest export and import market in the region, therefore liberal and free markets are in our interests!!]
- in order to maintain their shared interests and in the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, Asia Pacific countries tend to settle frictions and disputes peacefully; and, [Because conflict will destabilise our ever so lucrative markets and disrupt our growth]
- Asia Pacific countries cooperate to cope with challenges and risks, and to maintain a stable secure environment for common prosperity. [We don't need outside assistance with our dommestic issues, thanks very much for your offer but fark off]
..............
Peaceful Development in China
China is different from the rising powers in the history as it has chosen the path of peaceful development. The soul of this policy is that China strives for a peaceful international environment to develop and, at the same time, develops itself to better contribute to world peace. Peaceful development is not a makeshift, but a serious choice and pledge of the Chinese Government and people.
China, all along, adheres to a defence policy which is defensive in nature. The fundamentals of the policy are: to maintain sovereignty and territorial integrity and ensure the nation prosper in a peaceful environment; to perform homeland defence and resist a foreign invasion; to moderately enhance defence capabilities to deal with the multiple security threats, and cope with crisis, maintain peace, deter and, if necessary, win the war.
Characters of the Chinese Defence Policy
Self-defence
The Chinese defence policy is characterised as the following: first, it is for self-defence. Strategically we adhere to defence, self-defence and would win by striking only after the enemy has struck. China shall never fire the first shot. Such an approach is consistent with the ancient Chinese thought to use caution before getting into a war - use force only for a just cause, put people first, and cherish life.
Independent Defence
Second, it aims for independent defence. We would secure the country with our own capabilities, without joining any form of military alliance with any countries. We independently develop national defence industries, and the defence science and technology sector. We independently handle military-to-military affairs while balancing national interests, regional interests and global interests.
Limited Military Power
Third, it is aimed to achieve limited military power. We always put national sovereignty and territory integrity first, but not seek absolute military dominance. We are committed to developing a smaller but highly capably military force in a unique Chinese way and to promote all-round balanced and sustainable defence and military development. We continue to embrace the longstanding nuclear policy of no first use, will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nuclear weapon-free countries and zones.
A Peace Policy
Fourth, it is a peace policy. We make regional and world peace one of the objectives of the Chinese defence policy, and handle the military-to-military relations in light of the principles of mutual respect, equal consultation, mutual benefit, reciprocity, cooperation and win-win. We would seek common ground while shelving differences and promote harmony and amity with all countries. We are committed to developing non-alignment, non-confrontational mutual cooperation, which does not direct against a third party.
................
The Chinese Defence Budget
Strict Legal Procedures
Here I would comment on the suspicion over the Chinese military transparency and defence budget. Regarding the defence budget, I have three comments to offer. First, in China defence budgeting follows a set of highly strict legal procedures, and the published defence budget is true and authentic. [I am sorry, but I do not believe this. My thesis mentions the cross over between private R&D and the PLA, it also metions barter systems of acquirement with Russia etc.]
Logistics
Second, the increased proportion of the budget is mostly used to make up the retail price, improve welfare of the military personnel, and for better logistical support. [A huge amount of the modernisation process has been directed toward personel, pay and living standards as per the PLA's claim]
Relatively Small Expenditure
Third, given the multiple security threats we face, the geopolitical environment, the size of the territory and the per capita expense, the Chinese defence expenditure is fairly small by all judgments. [This is also true, check the data in my chapter of the PLA. As a percentage of the GDP, China spends fark all compared to the US..., who of course are the loudest when complaining about the PLA budget.]
Military Transparency
Regarding military transparency, I think that due to differences in history, culture, social system and ideology, countries naturally disagree on what transparency means, and how to achieve it. Nothing in this world is absolute. Transparency is a relative concept too. More importantly, the growth of a country's military power is a dynamic process full of changeable factors, which is difficult to be valued precisely so it takes time to achieve transparency.
Anyhow, it is obvious to all that China is gradually making progress in military transparency, in light of the principles of trust, responsibility, security, and quality.
Conclusion
We propose countries strengthen information sharing and intelligence cooperation, establish an early warning system for crisis and emergencies; enhance coordination and cooperation among functional organisations; facilitate visits, academic exchange, joint training and exercise among the military forces so as to enhance mutual understanding and trust; and strengthen their capabilities to jointly deal with new threats and challenges.
Peace is a precondition of Asia Pacific development, a fundamental interest of the people in this region. I love the idea of the human society and, therefore, the ultimate pursuit of all of us in uniform, as long as the Asia Pacific countries are committed to better welfare of their peoples, and committed to regional people and development we will be able to bring lasting peace and common prosperity to the region. China has every confidence to make this dream come true.
As per much of China's public proclamations, this one was highly rhetorical with much symbolic language. They talk mostly of openness between countries through dialogue that will create trust; multilateralism that will encourage countries to work with each other instead of against and a stabile Asia Pacific region.
Last edited:
INDIA AND CHINA: BUILDING INTERNATIONAL STABILITY
Q&A
A K Antony, Minister of Defence, India
Lt Gen Zhang Qinsheng, Deputy Chief of Staff of the PLA (Intelligence), China
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ssion-speeches-2007/second-plenary-session-qa
William Cohen, former US Secretary of Defence
Thank you, John, and thank you General Zhang. I think it's very important that you are at this conference, and I applaud you and your colleagues for attending. It has made an important contribution to this dialogue.
We have, and you, discussed the issue and importance of transparency - transparency being important in order to determine one's capabilities, and hopefully one's intentions. But as every military person in this room would say, capabilities are really important because intentions can change rather quickly. So the need for transparency becomes imperative on two counts.
Secondly, there is a need for communication. That is why we have the Shangri-La dialogue, in order to share ideas and thoughts and ways in which we can proceed peacefully.
And in your final point, number three, you talked about strengthening information sharing, early warning sharing, enhancing cooperation, academic exchanges, joint training and exercises, and I was wondering if you would recommend, and whether you would support, establishing a direct hotline between the Chinese military and the Department of Defence and the United States - whether that level of communication would be important in order to avoid either mistakes or miscalculations about one's intentions or activities.
General Zhang
Regarding the questions that have been posed to me, I would like to, first, address the question posed by the former Secretary of Defence of the United States, regarding military transparency and the establishment of a hotline between the Departments of Defence of the two countries.
Regarding military transparency - in the spring of last year, I actually met a gentleman from the United States headed by Mr Roderman, who came to China for the eighth round of consultation. On that occasion I made it clear how China understood the concept of transparency.
China believes transparency, first, is about strategic intents - whether a country has a clear strategic intent. I think China has a very clear strategic intent. The core of 10 national defence policy is about self-defence on the Chinese territory to deter aggression and evasion. We practice a policy of active defence, but we never initiate aggression or envision.
China does not have any military bases overseas. We are not prepared or are going to invade any other country or region, so regarding China's strategic intents, you can find it in China's constitution, which is about defending the national sovereignty, and a territorial interpret of China to protect the Chinese people.
This is such a clear strategic intent. I think everybody here, we are all senior officials and officers. You are senior researchers who have been studying strategical matters for so long, so it is not difficult for you to understand the importance of strategic intent regarding transparency.
Secondly, regarding the development of China's defence capabilities - the international community has this kind of opinion that China's literary capabilities go beyond what China needs. They should make the right judgment regarding the development of China's military capabilities.
To do that there are three elements to consider. First, China is a large country; China's borderline totals 40,000 kilometres, China's total territory is 9.6 million square kilometres, and China has a population of 1.3 billion people.
In response to this kind of size, China should have a proportionate military capability, and China also has another problem which is the Taiwan issue. The Taiwan authorities still challenge the integrity of China. Some people in Taiwan are still doing things to - about secessionism, so China's military must be prepared to cope with this kind of threat, and if anything happens, China's military must be able to respond.
China will never allow Taiwan to be separated from the Chinese territory. Taiwan is a core interest of China. Regarding the Taiwan issue, China will try everything, including political diplomatic, economic and even military forces to defend the territorial integrity of China to present Taiwan's secessionism.
And, thirdly, in the 21st century the Chinese society, and the Chinese economy, are now at a new stage. We face traditional challenges and threats as well new non-traditional challenges, including extremism, terrorism, and secessionism; and there are still some factors of uncertainty facing China. That is why China needs to develop its military capabilities to such a degree so ensure China's military intent is achieved.
And thirdly, about the military budget of China - in 2007 China's military budget has increased by 17.8 per cent. This increased amount was US$44.9 billion. This US$44.9 billion was mainly used in three aspects. First is to improve the salaries of our man and women in uniform, and to guarantee a good living standards of the retired military man, and this accounts for US$20 billion of the total.
And second aspect is on 1 August 2.3 million army man will change their uniforms, and the expense will be allotted from the increased budget; and, third, we will also build some more military schools. Currently there are 67 military schools. If US$100 million for each of them, that means US$70 billion, and we need also to allocate the expenditures for improving the military equipment. That is why we have increased about US $50 billion of new budget.
Now, I am going to talk about the hotlines between the Department of Defence and the male relations between China and the US.
The hotlines between China and US has been under discussion for several years. Last year was a turning point. When our president visited the US, he met with Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld and Ms Rice, and they talked about the issue of establishing the hotlines between the two countries.
In April this year the US sent a delegation to China to have a technological review about the possibility of establishing this hotline. Currently we have cleared all the possibility - all the technological difficulties. We are prepared that in September this year during the 9th SANO US defence talks, we are going to settle this issue down. That means in September this year I will lead a delegation to the US and meet with the US military officials for the ninth time, and at that time we will finalise the establishment of the hotline. I am not sure if I have provided a satisfactory answer.
Q&A
A K Antony, Minister of Defence, India
Lt Gen Zhang Qinsheng, Deputy Chief of Staff of the PLA (Intelligence), China
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ssion-speeches-2007/second-plenary-session-qa
William Cohen, former US Secretary of Defence
Thank you, John, and thank you General Zhang. I think it's very important that you are at this conference, and I applaud you and your colleagues for attending. It has made an important contribution to this dialogue.
We have, and you, discussed the issue and importance of transparency - transparency being important in order to determine one's capabilities, and hopefully one's intentions. But as every military person in this room would say, capabilities are really important because intentions can change rather quickly. So the need for transparency becomes imperative on two counts.
Secondly, there is a need for communication. That is why we have the Shangri-La dialogue, in order to share ideas and thoughts and ways in which we can proceed peacefully.
And in your final point, number three, you talked about strengthening information sharing, early warning sharing, enhancing cooperation, academic exchanges, joint training and exercises, and I was wondering if you would recommend, and whether you would support, establishing a direct hotline between the Chinese military and the Department of Defence and the United States - whether that level of communication would be important in order to avoid either mistakes or miscalculations about one's intentions or activities.
General Zhang
Regarding the questions that have been posed to me, I would like to, first, address the question posed by the former Secretary of Defence of the United States, regarding military transparency and the establishment of a hotline between the Departments of Defence of the two countries.
Regarding military transparency - in the spring of last year, I actually met a gentleman from the United States headed by Mr Roderman, who came to China for the eighth round of consultation. On that occasion I made it clear how China understood the concept of transparency.
China believes transparency, first, is about strategic intents - whether a country has a clear strategic intent. I think China has a very clear strategic intent. The core of 10 national defence policy is about self-defence on the Chinese territory to deter aggression and evasion. We practice a policy of active defence, but we never initiate aggression or envision.
China does not have any military bases overseas. We are not prepared or are going to invade any other country or region, so regarding China's strategic intents, you can find it in China's constitution, which is about defending the national sovereignty, and a territorial interpret of China to protect the Chinese people.
This is such a clear strategic intent. I think everybody here, we are all senior officials and officers. You are senior researchers who have been studying strategical matters for so long, so it is not difficult for you to understand the importance of strategic intent regarding transparency.
Secondly, regarding the development of China's defence capabilities - the international community has this kind of opinion that China's literary capabilities go beyond what China needs. They should make the right judgment regarding the development of China's military capabilities.
To do that there are three elements to consider. First, China is a large country; China's borderline totals 40,000 kilometres, China's total territory is 9.6 million square kilometres, and China has a population of 1.3 billion people.
In response to this kind of size, China should have a proportionate military capability, and China also has another problem which is the Taiwan issue. The Taiwan authorities still challenge the integrity of China. Some people in Taiwan are still doing things to - about secessionism, so China's military must be prepared to cope with this kind of threat, and if anything happens, China's military must be able to respond.
China will never allow Taiwan to be separated from the Chinese territory. Taiwan is a core interest of China. Regarding the Taiwan issue, China will try everything, including political diplomatic, economic and even military forces to defend the territorial integrity of China to present Taiwan's secessionism.
And, thirdly, in the 21st century the Chinese society, and the Chinese economy, are now at a new stage. We face traditional challenges and threats as well new non-traditional challenges, including extremism, terrorism, and secessionism; and there are still some factors of uncertainty facing China. That is why China needs to develop its military capabilities to such a degree so ensure China's military intent is achieved.
And thirdly, about the military budget of China - in 2007 China's military budget has increased by 17.8 per cent. This increased amount was US$44.9 billion. This US$44.9 billion was mainly used in three aspects. First is to improve the salaries of our man and women in uniform, and to guarantee a good living standards of the retired military man, and this accounts for US$20 billion of the total.
And second aspect is on 1 August 2.3 million army man will change their uniforms, and the expense will be allotted from the increased budget; and, third, we will also build some more military schools. Currently there are 67 military schools. If US$100 million for each of them, that means US$70 billion, and we need also to allocate the expenditures for improving the military equipment. That is why we have increased about US $50 billion of new budget.
Now, I am going to talk about the hotlines between the Department of Defence and the male relations between China and the US.
The hotlines between China and US has been under discussion for several years. Last year was a turning point. When our president visited the US, he met with Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld and Ms Rice, and they talked about the issue of establishing the hotlines between the two countries.
In April this year the US sent a delegation to China to have a technological review about the possibility of establishing this hotline. Currently we have cleared all the possibility - all the technological difficulties. We are prepared that in September this year during the 9th SANO US defence talks, we are going to settle this issue down. That means in September this year I will lead a delegation to the US and meet with the US military officials for the ninth time, and at that time we will finalise the establishment of the hotline. I am not sure if I have provided a satisfactory answer.
NUCLEAR CHALLENGES
Fumio Kyuma, Minister of Defense, Japan
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...eches-2007/third-plenary-session--fumio-kyuma
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defense and the Self-Defense Forces have been maintaining multi-functional, flexible and effective defense capabilities to cope with diverse and complex threats today. As a part of that, efforts are made to establish effective responsive capability to WMD attack, which could discourage those who contemplates imposing threat by WMD.
For example, Japan has started instituting the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System together with our ally, the United States. The threat of Ballistic Missiles becomes even more serious when they are combined with WMDs. While Japan had started joint research of BMD in the 90s with the United States, public awareness was increased after North Korea launched a missile over Japan in 1998. Taking into account of proliferation of WMD and Ballistic Missiles thereafter and the technical viabilities of the BMD system being confirmed, Japan decided to introduce BMD in 2003. The basic concept of the system is to operate a multi-tier interception by a combination of the Aegis BMD system at the upper-tier and the Patriot system at the lower-tier. The system makes use of the existing SDF capabilities. First PAC-3 was deployed this March as the first component of BMD capabilities, and the first Aegis destroyer equipped with SM-3 missiles will be deployed this December. Meanwhile Japan has started joint cooperative development of advanced SM-3 missile with the United States.
It is a pressing necessity to sustain unit operational capability as well as to create a posture to minimize damage in the event of WMD attack. Japan is working with the United States to enhance capability in this regard.
This has profound influences on China's ability to project its force in the Western Pacific. Especially being that China's main element of shock and instant attack, should Taiwan ever be stupid enough to claim independence, is about 8000 or so surface to surface missiles. Japan has eluded to the fact that it shows a great deal of interest in stability in the Western Pacific, thus implying that it may well support the US if it is pushed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack. It also simply reduces China's nuclear deterence and all other missile capabilities. IT will definately spark a new arms race in the region just as the missile sheild proposed for Easern Europe (Poland and Czech R. will with Russia). Persoanlly, I wish the US would stop pushing the envelope with these missile shields. THey don't make the world safer, jsut the US and its allies. Which will definately bring us back to the bad old days of Cold War and alliance building when this kind of competiton between nations should have been left in the 20th Century.
POSM, I'll get back to you on that one, will need to research. So far I can tell you that China has a presence in Zimbabwe, Angola, Burkina Faso and Sudan. This may just be limited to arms sales or trade deals, but this is still influence especially when it comes to votes at the United Nations Security Council!
Fumio Kyuma, Minister of Defense, Japan
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...eches-2007/third-plenary-session--fumio-kyuma
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defense and the Self-Defense Forces have been maintaining multi-functional, flexible and effective defense capabilities to cope with diverse and complex threats today. As a part of that, efforts are made to establish effective responsive capability to WMD attack, which could discourage those who contemplates imposing threat by WMD.
For example, Japan has started instituting the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System together with our ally, the United States. The threat of Ballistic Missiles becomes even more serious when they are combined with WMDs. While Japan had started joint research of BMD in the 90s with the United States, public awareness was increased after North Korea launched a missile over Japan in 1998. Taking into account of proliferation of WMD and Ballistic Missiles thereafter and the technical viabilities of the BMD system being confirmed, Japan decided to introduce BMD in 2003. The basic concept of the system is to operate a multi-tier interception by a combination of the Aegis BMD system at the upper-tier and the Patriot system at the lower-tier. The system makes use of the existing SDF capabilities. First PAC-3 was deployed this March as the first component of BMD capabilities, and the first Aegis destroyer equipped with SM-3 missiles will be deployed this December. Meanwhile Japan has started joint cooperative development of advanced SM-3 missile with the United States.
It is a pressing necessity to sustain unit operational capability as well as to create a posture to minimize damage in the event of WMD attack. Japan is working with the United States to enhance capability in this regard.
This has profound influences on China's ability to project its force in the Western Pacific. Especially being that China's main element of shock and instant attack, should Taiwan ever be stupid enough to claim independence, is about 8000 or so surface to surface missiles. Japan has eluded to the fact that it shows a great deal of interest in stability in the Western Pacific, thus implying that it may well support the US if it is pushed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack. It also simply reduces China's nuclear deterence and all other missile capabilities. IT will definately spark a new arms race in the region just as the missile sheild proposed for Easern Europe (Poland and Czech R. will with Russia). Persoanlly, I wish the US would stop pushing the envelope with these missile shields. THey don't make the world safer, jsut the US and its allies. Which will definately bring us back to the bad old days of Cold War and alliance building when this kind of competiton between nations should have been left in the 20th Century.
POSM, I'll get back to you on that one, will need to research. So far I can tell you that China has a presence in Zimbabwe, Angola, Burkina Faso and Sudan. This may just be limited to arms sales or trade deals, but this is still influence especially when it comes to votes at the United Nations Security Council!
Last edited:
NUCLEAR CHALLENGES
Kim Jang-Soo, Minister of National Defense, Republic of Korea
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ches-2007/third-plenary-session--kim-jang-soo
...........
North Korea’s nuclear program disrupts the military balance of the Korean peninsula, increases the possibility of a nuclear domino effect in Northeast Asia, and poses a serious challenge to the international community’s WMD non-proliferation efforts.
[This is important for China int hat if North Korea continues to nuclearise, this will also force Japan and possibly South Korea to do the same thus decreasing China's own nuclear position, along with Russia's.]
.............
It follows that the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula through the complete eradication of North Korea’s past, present, and future nuclear programs and their byproducts should be the principle and objective under which the six-party talks operate.
Concessionary political deal-making or compromise, in any way allowing North Korea to possess nuclear weapons contravening this principle and objective should not be allowed to pass. This view is shared by North Korea’s counterparts at the six-party talks.
Second, the process of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula will only succeed when all parties to the talks adopt a patient and mutually cooperative posture.
[This could well be a nudge toward China, being that they are the DPRK's only real political partner in the world and China does not want to see the regime in Pyongyang fall. So it will not cripple the country, but will also not want them to nuclearise. IT is rumoured that Hu Jintao was rather pissed at Kim when they did the nuke test recently because of the position this placed Beijing in]
...........
What we should always keep in mind in seeking a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue is the fact that today’s peace and security cannot be sacrificed for tomorrow’s, which are by no means guaranteed. In other words, we must make sure that peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region are not negatively affected, and that no security crisis is allowed to befall the Korean peninsula in the process of dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue.
In adherence to this line of thinking, the Republic of Korea armed forces actively support the Korean government’s policy of endeavoring a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue, all the while maintaining its deterrence capability and crisis management posture vis-à-vis the North Korean nuclear threat.
Put differently, the Korean armed forces retain an autonomous conventional deterrence posture against North Korea, coupled with a nuclear deterrence capability afforded by the US nuclear umbrella. Moreover, the Korean armed forces maintain a crisis management posture in preparation for an unanticipated deterioration of the situation on the peninsula.
[Korea does not want to nuclearise and does not want Japan to do for the same reasons as China. Japan has invaded both territories before in the past and both countries are fearful that Japan's militaristic character may yet again raise its head now that you have a strong nationalist in power who speaks of revising Japan's pacifist constitution. Korea, as said above, already has a nuclear deterence in the shape of it's security pact with the US (and the 20 odd thousand of its troops based in the country). So it can then afford to have good relations with China, Japan and even North Korea without falling too deeply under either's influence. Thus, Korea enjoys the status quo and wishes to retain it as long as possible. When East Asia rises, as it will, Korea will slowely shift from the West to the East, all the time keeping at least a few toes in the US camp.]
Kim Jang-Soo, Minister of National Defense, Republic of Korea
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ches-2007/third-plenary-session--kim-jang-soo
...........
North Korea’s nuclear program disrupts the military balance of the Korean peninsula, increases the possibility of a nuclear domino effect in Northeast Asia, and poses a serious challenge to the international community’s WMD non-proliferation efforts.
[This is important for China int hat if North Korea continues to nuclearise, this will also force Japan and possibly South Korea to do the same thus decreasing China's own nuclear position, along with Russia's.]
.............
It follows that the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula through the complete eradication of North Korea’s past, present, and future nuclear programs and their byproducts should be the principle and objective under which the six-party talks operate.
Concessionary political deal-making or compromise, in any way allowing North Korea to possess nuclear weapons contravening this principle and objective should not be allowed to pass. This view is shared by North Korea’s counterparts at the six-party talks.
Second, the process of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula will only succeed when all parties to the talks adopt a patient and mutually cooperative posture.
[This could well be a nudge toward China, being that they are the DPRK's only real political partner in the world and China does not want to see the regime in Pyongyang fall. So it will not cripple the country, but will also not want them to nuclearise. IT is rumoured that Hu Jintao was rather pissed at Kim when they did the nuke test recently because of the position this placed Beijing in]
...........
What we should always keep in mind in seeking a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue is the fact that today’s peace and security cannot be sacrificed for tomorrow’s, which are by no means guaranteed. In other words, we must make sure that peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region are not negatively affected, and that no security crisis is allowed to befall the Korean peninsula in the process of dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue.
In adherence to this line of thinking, the Republic of Korea armed forces actively support the Korean government’s policy of endeavoring a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue, all the while maintaining its deterrence capability and crisis management posture vis-à-vis the North Korean nuclear threat.
Put differently, the Korean armed forces retain an autonomous conventional deterrence posture against North Korea, coupled with a nuclear deterrence capability afforded by the US nuclear umbrella. Moreover, the Korean armed forces maintain a crisis management posture in preparation for an unanticipated deterioration of the situation on the peninsula.
[Korea does not want to nuclearise and does not want Japan to do for the same reasons as China. Japan has invaded both territories before in the past and both countries are fearful that Japan's militaristic character may yet again raise its head now that you have a strong nationalist in power who speaks of revising Japan's pacifist constitution. Korea, as said above, already has a nuclear deterence in the shape of it's security pact with the US (and the 20 odd thousand of its troops based in the country). So it can then afford to have good relations with China, Japan and even North Korea without falling too deeply under either's influence. Thus, Korea enjoys the status quo and wishes to retain it as long as possible. When East Asia rises, as it will, Korea will slowely shift from the West to the East, all the time keeping at least a few toes in the US camp.]
GravityGuru
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Play it cool man, you don't want to come on to strong
Drizz
Likes Dirt
You better check out the window and see if you got a tail. *I am being semi-serious*
I'm in an internet cafe right now and he is sitting next to me. I'm quite serious too. But, TBH, I'm really aligned with the foreign policy coming out of Beijing right now so I'm no threat to them at all. If anything, I'm just being checked out...., and discussing the fact quite openly!
I do also kind of expect to be blocked from Farkin one day. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Drizz
Likes Dirt
If its one of the party officials its all cool, worse they can do is chuck you out of the country. Local criminal gangs would be alot more troublesome.
I guess you are a foreigner that should be less of a worry.
NUCLEAR CHALLENGES
Q&A
Fumio Kyuma, Minister of Defense, Japan
Kim Jang-Soo, Minister of National Defense, Republic of Korea
Dr Brendan Nelson, Minister for Defence, Australia
Admiral Dennis Blair
Both Minister Kyuma and Minister Kim Jang-Soo talked about the importance of the six-party talks. Certainly the five members are united on their objective of denuclearised Korean peninsular; that is, North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons programme. North Korea has agreed to the same objective several times. We wonder how many times they can agree to it in the future.
The differences are interesting. Three of these five parties have nuclear weapons: the United States, China and Russia. Two do not: Japan and the Republic of Korea. Of the three countries that have nuclear weapons, two seem to be able to rely on deterrents to be able to deal with North Korea. They do not feel compelled to build missile defences. The United States does seem to feel that it needs defences as well as its own nuclear arsenal.
The two non-nuclear countries – Japan and the Republic of Korea – both rely on extended deterrents from the United States. However, one of them – Japan – feels that it also needs to build missile defences. The other – the Republic of Korea – does not.
Based on these interesting different approaches by the five members of the six-party talks, my question for Minister Kyuma would be: if these six-party talks are successful and North Korea in fact gives up its nuclear weapons, does Japan need a missile defence programme?
My question for Minister Kim Jang-Soo is the reverse. If the six-party talks are not successful, and if North Korea persists in maintaining and perhaps increasing its nuclear arsenal, does the Republic of Korea require missile defences to deal with this?
[Wow, what a great question!]
....................
General Zhang Qinsheng
During the end of the last session, the chairman hoped that I could address some of the questions about nuclear issues in this session. Regarding China’s nuclear policy, China’s nuclear policy is about self defence. Its objective is to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons against China.
There are five aspects to China’s nuclear policy. Firstly, China adheres to the principle that in any kind of circumstance or situation, China will never be the first one to use nuclear weapons. China makes the commitment that China unconditionally will never use nuclear weapons or threat to use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-free zone or country.
Thirdly, China encourages the total elimination of nuclear weapons and force. Fourthly, China’s development of nuclear weapons is limited. Fifthly, China ensures the safety and reliability of its nuclear capabilities. It is under strict control. There will not be an accident or unauthorised use.
Regarding the second question about nuclear policies about China’s attitude towards the joint deployment of anti-ballistic missiles by the United States and Japan. China is quite concerned about this intention of the United States and Japan. We are worried that this type of deployment will destabilise Asia and the Pacific region and that it will create uncertainties in terms of the stability and peace.
If Japan and the United States deploy a missile defence system that covers Taiwan we are going to oppose it very strongly. China believes that any bilateral military corporation should never target a third party or infringe the interests of a third party.
During the tea break, some delegates asked the delegates of the Chinese delegation about the point made by the Secretary of Defence of the United States, Mr Gates, about the report about China’s military capabilities published by the Department of Defence of the United States in May. On May 25th, the Defence Department of the United States published a report about China’s military capabilities. In response to that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China’s Ministry of Defence, and China’s researchers and senior officials all expressed their concerns about such a report against China.
Regarding this report, I have the four following points to make. Firstly, this report is unreliable. It is not to be believed. Secondly, this report is a product of the Cold War mindset. Thirdly, this report creates the so-called ‘China threat’ theory in the international community. Fourthly, this report is detrimental to the current development of the relationship between China and the United States, and the relationship between the militaries of the two countries.
[Wow, that's a really strong statement there, speaks for itself really!]
..............
Ma Zhengang, President, China Institute for International Studies
Because I am sitting behind some taller people, I raised my hand very fast but I was almost ignored. I have two questions. The first is to Minister Kyuma. You mentioned that the defence policy for Japan is for peace and stability. That is very good, but in the past two decades or so we have noticed some notable developments in the military policy or strategy of Japan. Notably, there was an amendment to the Japanese constitution, which is regarded as a peace constitution, and in the guiding strategy and operation of the Japanese army.
There has also been an enlargement of the area with which Japanese security is concerned. Last year, when North Korea held their nuclear test, I also heard noise from Japan that there was a possibility that Japan would have nuclear weapons. My first question is whether Japan is ready to develop nuclear weapons, with or without the success of the six-party talks on North Korea. If the six-party talks fail, perhaps you would have a good excuse to develop nuclear weapons. My question is whether you have a long-term policy or strategy to go nuclear. That is my first question.
The second question should have been addressed to the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Gates, but I did not have a chance. It is again about cooperation based on shared values or ideology. We have heard a lot about that recently, the so-called ‘alliance of democracy’, or ‘democratic concert’, or ‘circle of freedom and prosperity’ and so on.
There are a number of these ideas, which all share the characteristic in that they are based on so-called democracy, shared values or judgement. In that case, is there a possibility that countries of the world will be divided into two separate categories? Would it be possible that there were would be new blocs opposing each other? Would that be beneficial to the defence of stability and peace? This question can be answered by any of you. Thank you very much.
[Jesus Christ, they're really getting it all out there in this Q&A session! Keep in mind that this was only two days ago as well. ]
..............
Fumio Kyuma
I think it is impossible, but in each of the countries I think there are some rational decisions made. There will not be any rash actions taken. However, in the case of North Korea, it is a totalitarian country and so I think it is important that we deter the development of nuclear weapons in that sort of situation. Fortunately, we are able to participate in the six-party talks. We have seen much effort expended by North America and by China. We are looking at economic sanctions and so on in order to ask and demand that North Korea abandons its nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, Japan is unable to carry out these matters alone and so we are interested in international developments.
In addition, in relation to different countries, I do not feel there are significant threats as such. However, if there is a spread of nuclear problems and if this spreads to terrorism, then it is very difficult to stop. Even if a small amount is spread to terrorism, it becomes a very large threat. Therefore, we need to use something like the MD to protect ourselves. If terrorists have weapons and we do not have any countermeasures, then we will be in trouble. I think that nuclear deterrence between states does work, but unless we have some sort of countermeasure for terrorist groups, then we are in trouble. That is why we feel that we need to pursue missile defence programmes. With regard to content[?], we will be working to further suppress nuclear proliferation as well.
Of course there are other concerns with regard to our constitution, but we have not made any amendments for 60 years. It may be time that we do so. However, even if we are to amend our constitution, the main policy of pacifism is going to continue. This is something that all Japanese people support and we are going to continue on with this mission. Even if the constitution is amended, I hope we can ask you to pay attention to that aspect.
With regard to security issues, I think there are very different concerns with regard to our policies. Our policy is exclusively one of self-defence. With regard to overseas operations, we have to look at the extent to which we are involved. We cannot just go overseas and say, ‘Help’. Of course, some are of the opinion that we should be able to do certain activities. There are discussions, which will continue into the future, about using military force while we are overseas. There are very strict regulations against that and this is a principle that we will uphold in the future as well. Our basic stance will not change. Up to now, we have been suppressing all of this 120%, but we may reduce this to 100%. If our neighbours are attacked, then of course some people would say it is strange for us to just watch and stay where we are. There are many discussions and controversies about this. We need to continue on with these discussions, but this does not mean that our posture or our position has changed at all.
[And there we have it Ladies and Gentlemen. In one statement we have a justification for a missile defence, albeit a complete bullshit one. If the terrorists do get a nuke, it certainly won't be in the form of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Who is going to sell that to them, how will it be transported to them, how will they control the guidence systems, where would they launch it from and how the hell would they get some one to supply them with one of the world's most formidable and technically advanced delivery systems? If the terrorists get one, it will just be a warhead of suitcase nuke (if they even exist, of course). Therefore, the idea of a MDS to thwart terrorists is stupid. Better for then to say that Kim Jong Il is mad and he would risk nuclear reprisal just to attack and therefore MAD does not apply to a crazy person, hence the MDS.
Seconsly, is the statement about "neighbours being attacked". This, to me, is a pretty direct reference to Taiwan. Japan is all but committed to defending the island and this is their way of stating the fact. This is why they are in the missile defence shield. If they come to Taiwan's aid with the US, then they will become a prime target for missile attacks, probably not nukes though as that would pitch the Chinese against the US which they could not hope to win.....unless China starts taking out satelites of course!]
Q&A
Fumio Kyuma, Minister of Defense, Japan
Kim Jang-Soo, Minister of National Defense, Republic of Korea
Dr Brendan Nelson, Minister for Defence, Australia
Admiral Dennis Blair
Both Minister Kyuma and Minister Kim Jang-Soo talked about the importance of the six-party talks. Certainly the five members are united on their objective of denuclearised Korean peninsular; that is, North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons programme. North Korea has agreed to the same objective several times. We wonder how many times they can agree to it in the future.
The differences are interesting. Three of these five parties have nuclear weapons: the United States, China and Russia. Two do not: Japan and the Republic of Korea. Of the three countries that have nuclear weapons, two seem to be able to rely on deterrents to be able to deal with North Korea. They do not feel compelled to build missile defences. The United States does seem to feel that it needs defences as well as its own nuclear arsenal.
The two non-nuclear countries – Japan and the Republic of Korea – both rely on extended deterrents from the United States. However, one of them – Japan – feels that it also needs to build missile defences. The other – the Republic of Korea – does not.
Based on these interesting different approaches by the five members of the six-party talks, my question for Minister Kyuma would be: if these six-party talks are successful and North Korea in fact gives up its nuclear weapons, does Japan need a missile defence programme?
My question for Minister Kim Jang-Soo is the reverse. If the six-party talks are not successful, and if North Korea persists in maintaining and perhaps increasing its nuclear arsenal, does the Republic of Korea require missile defences to deal with this?
[Wow, what a great question!]
....................
General Zhang Qinsheng
During the end of the last session, the chairman hoped that I could address some of the questions about nuclear issues in this session. Regarding China’s nuclear policy, China’s nuclear policy is about self defence. Its objective is to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons against China.
There are five aspects to China’s nuclear policy. Firstly, China adheres to the principle that in any kind of circumstance or situation, China will never be the first one to use nuclear weapons. China makes the commitment that China unconditionally will never use nuclear weapons or threat to use nuclear weapons against a nuclear-free zone or country.
Thirdly, China encourages the total elimination of nuclear weapons and force. Fourthly, China’s development of nuclear weapons is limited. Fifthly, China ensures the safety and reliability of its nuclear capabilities. It is under strict control. There will not be an accident or unauthorised use.
Regarding the second question about nuclear policies about China’s attitude towards the joint deployment of anti-ballistic missiles by the United States and Japan. China is quite concerned about this intention of the United States and Japan. We are worried that this type of deployment will destabilise Asia and the Pacific region and that it will create uncertainties in terms of the stability and peace.
If Japan and the United States deploy a missile defence system that covers Taiwan we are going to oppose it very strongly. China believes that any bilateral military corporation should never target a third party or infringe the interests of a third party.
During the tea break, some delegates asked the delegates of the Chinese delegation about the point made by the Secretary of Defence of the United States, Mr Gates, about the report about China’s military capabilities published by the Department of Defence of the United States in May. On May 25th, the Defence Department of the United States published a report about China’s military capabilities. In response to that China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China’s Ministry of Defence, and China’s researchers and senior officials all expressed their concerns about such a report against China.
Regarding this report, I have the four following points to make. Firstly, this report is unreliable. It is not to be believed. Secondly, this report is a product of the Cold War mindset. Thirdly, this report creates the so-called ‘China threat’ theory in the international community. Fourthly, this report is detrimental to the current development of the relationship between China and the United States, and the relationship between the militaries of the two countries.
[Wow, that's a really strong statement there, speaks for itself really!]
..............
Ma Zhengang, President, China Institute for International Studies
Because I am sitting behind some taller people, I raised my hand very fast but I was almost ignored. I have two questions. The first is to Minister Kyuma. You mentioned that the defence policy for Japan is for peace and stability. That is very good, but in the past two decades or so we have noticed some notable developments in the military policy or strategy of Japan. Notably, there was an amendment to the Japanese constitution, which is regarded as a peace constitution, and in the guiding strategy and operation of the Japanese army.
There has also been an enlargement of the area with which Japanese security is concerned. Last year, when North Korea held their nuclear test, I also heard noise from Japan that there was a possibility that Japan would have nuclear weapons. My first question is whether Japan is ready to develop nuclear weapons, with or without the success of the six-party talks on North Korea. If the six-party talks fail, perhaps you would have a good excuse to develop nuclear weapons. My question is whether you have a long-term policy or strategy to go nuclear. That is my first question.
The second question should have been addressed to the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Gates, but I did not have a chance. It is again about cooperation based on shared values or ideology. We have heard a lot about that recently, the so-called ‘alliance of democracy’, or ‘democratic concert’, or ‘circle of freedom and prosperity’ and so on.
There are a number of these ideas, which all share the characteristic in that they are based on so-called democracy, shared values or judgement. In that case, is there a possibility that countries of the world will be divided into two separate categories? Would it be possible that there were would be new blocs opposing each other? Would that be beneficial to the defence of stability and peace? This question can be answered by any of you. Thank you very much.
[Jesus Christ, they're really getting it all out there in this Q&A session! Keep in mind that this was only two days ago as well. ]
..............
Fumio Kyuma
I think it is impossible, but in each of the countries I think there are some rational decisions made. There will not be any rash actions taken. However, in the case of North Korea, it is a totalitarian country and so I think it is important that we deter the development of nuclear weapons in that sort of situation. Fortunately, we are able to participate in the six-party talks. We have seen much effort expended by North America and by China. We are looking at economic sanctions and so on in order to ask and demand that North Korea abandons its nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, Japan is unable to carry out these matters alone and so we are interested in international developments.
In addition, in relation to different countries, I do not feel there are significant threats as such. However, if there is a spread of nuclear problems and if this spreads to terrorism, then it is very difficult to stop. Even if a small amount is spread to terrorism, it becomes a very large threat. Therefore, we need to use something like the MD to protect ourselves. If terrorists have weapons and we do not have any countermeasures, then we will be in trouble. I think that nuclear deterrence between states does work, but unless we have some sort of countermeasure for terrorist groups, then we are in trouble. That is why we feel that we need to pursue missile defence programmes. With regard to content[?], we will be working to further suppress nuclear proliferation as well.
Of course there are other concerns with regard to our constitution, but we have not made any amendments for 60 years. It may be time that we do so. However, even if we are to amend our constitution, the main policy of pacifism is going to continue. This is something that all Japanese people support and we are going to continue on with this mission. Even if the constitution is amended, I hope we can ask you to pay attention to that aspect.
With regard to security issues, I think there are very different concerns with regard to our policies. Our policy is exclusively one of self-defence. With regard to overseas operations, we have to look at the extent to which we are involved. We cannot just go overseas and say, ‘Help’. Of course, some are of the opinion that we should be able to do certain activities. There are discussions, which will continue into the future, about using military force while we are overseas. There are very strict regulations against that and this is a principle that we will uphold in the future as well. Our basic stance will not change. Up to now, we have been suppressing all of this 120%, but we may reduce this to 100%. If our neighbours are attacked, then of course some people would say it is strange for us to just watch and stay where we are. There are many discussions and controversies about this. We need to continue on with these discussions, but this does not mean that our posture or our position has changed at all.
[And there we have it Ladies and Gentlemen. In one statement we have a justification for a missile defence, albeit a complete bullshit one. If the terrorists do get a nuke, it certainly won't be in the form of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Who is going to sell that to them, how will it be transported to them, how will they control the guidence systems, where would they launch it from and how the hell would they get some one to supply them with one of the world's most formidable and technically advanced delivery systems? If the terrorists get one, it will just be a warhead of suitcase nuke (if they even exist, of course). Therefore, the idea of a MDS to thwart terrorists is stupid. Better for then to say that Kim Jong Il is mad and he would risk nuclear reprisal just to attack and therefore MAD does not apply to a crazy person, hence the MDS.
Seconsly, is the statement about "neighbours being attacked". This, to me, is a pretty direct reference to Taiwan. Japan is all but committed to defending the island and this is their way of stating the fact. This is why they are in the missile defence shield. If they come to Taiwan's aid with the US, then they will become a prime target for missile attacks, probably not nukes though as that would pitch the Chinese against the US which they could not hope to win.....unless China starts taking out satelites of course!]
SECURING REGIONAL WATERS: HOW MUCH PROGRESS?
Professor Juwono Sudarsono, Minister of Defence, Indonesia
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...2007/fourth-plenary-session--juwono-sudarsono
................
I think it is important to note that as was observed by many speakers yesterday, the Straits of Malacca is an important trading and naval passage area in the region.
It covers 30% of the 95% of sea borne trade. People do not realise that in this globalised world with tremendous advances in air transportation, 95% of trade is still conducted through the sea. The straits of Malacca account for about 40% of that 95% of sea born trade. It is very important for us, very important for the countries and region and very important for the global economy, which I will explain in a moment.
The United States is a major regional military powered region. It has been so for the past 70 years. The difference now is that we see the rise of Japan and China, two economies, one 4.1 trillion dollars Japan, and the other two trillion dollars, China. Korea is more than 1 trillion dollars, India is approaching 1.2 trillion dollars GDP. The whole of Asian, if I may speak for the ten member states of Asian accounts, were less than 600 billion dollars, so that is very important economic dimension to the links within regional security and maritime security linking Northeast Asia and South-East Asia.
This is where we and South-East Asia, Asian countries including Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia , safeguarding the Straits of Malacca, not only for the economies of South-East Asia, but also of its links with Northeast Asia. The power houses of Japan and China and Republic of Korea cannot be discounted in the analysis of maritime security.
The importance of Japan and China and south Korea to the United States is simply because these three economic power houses underwrite United States trade and financial deficits. It bears into the calculation about base funding of US troop and equipment presence in these three countries: Japan, South Korea and parts of South-East Asia.
The United States remains the security provider in terms of micro-strategic power because the specific command, commands the largest number of ships, planes and missiles that provide the secure environment in which trade within Northeast Asia and trade between Northeast Asia and South-East Asia is secure. With the rise of Japan and China as economic power houses, there is a tremendous need to recognise that these two major countries will also want to co-determine the terms and conditions of Western Pacific security, including maritime security by enhancing the naval capabilities within Northeast Asia and across to South-East Asia because of the sea lines of communication and the links with energy security to the gulf area.
..................
I would like to finish up by saying very simply that we must look at the nexus of politics, economics and security in the wider sense because the level of American willpower depends on how it overcomes the trade and physical deficit it sustains. So long as China, Japan and South Korea underwrites the deficit, the United States will bargain with each of these countries over the terms and conditions of its military presence in Northeast Asia.
That will affect also the viability of security in the wider sense and the salients affecting the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. Because Asia is also linked to the economies of both Japan and China, and also in a lesser sense to South Korea, there is tremendous interest for us in South-East Asia to link up and provide some degree of comfort level, mill to mill relationship within the armed forces of the South-East Asian countries and Northeast Asia. I think that would be the gist of my remarks.
[The Indo's; no bullshit when it comes to saying it how it is here!! ]
Professor Juwono Sudarsono, Minister of Defence, Indonesia
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...2007/fourth-plenary-session--juwono-sudarsono
................
I think it is important to note that as was observed by many speakers yesterday, the Straits of Malacca is an important trading and naval passage area in the region.
It covers 30% of the 95% of sea borne trade. People do not realise that in this globalised world with tremendous advances in air transportation, 95% of trade is still conducted through the sea. The straits of Malacca account for about 40% of that 95% of sea born trade. It is very important for us, very important for the countries and region and very important for the global economy, which I will explain in a moment.
The United States is a major regional military powered region. It has been so for the past 70 years. The difference now is that we see the rise of Japan and China, two economies, one 4.1 trillion dollars Japan, and the other two trillion dollars, China. Korea is more than 1 trillion dollars, India is approaching 1.2 trillion dollars GDP. The whole of Asian, if I may speak for the ten member states of Asian accounts, were less than 600 billion dollars, so that is very important economic dimension to the links within regional security and maritime security linking Northeast Asia and South-East Asia.
This is where we and South-East Asia, Asian countries including Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia , safeguarding the Straits of Malacca, not only for the economies of South-East Asia, but also of its links with Northeast Asia. The power houses of Japan and China and Republic of Korea cannot be discounted in the analysis of maritime security.
The importance of Japan and China and south Korea to the United States is simply because these three economic power houses underwrite United States trade and financial deficits. It bears into the calculation about base funding of US troop and equipment presence in these three countries: Japan, South Korea and parts of South-East Asia.
The United States remains the security provider in terms of micro-strategic power because the specific command, commands the largest number of ships, planes and missiles that provide the secure environment in which trade within Northeast Asia and trade between Northeast Asia and South-East Asia is secure. With the rise of Japan and China as economic power houses, there is a tremendous need to recognise that these two major countries will also want to co-determine the terms and conditions of Western Pacific security, including maritime security by enhancing the naval capabilities within Northeast Asia and across to South-East Asia because of the sea lines of communication and the links with energy security to the gulf area.
..................
I would like to finish up by saying very simply that we must look at the nexus of politics, economics and security in the wider sense because the level of American willpower depends on how it overcomes the trade and physical deficit it sustains. So long as China, Japan and South Korea underwrites the deficit, the United States will bargain with each of these countries over the terms and conditions of its military presence in Northeast Asia.
That will affect also the viability of security in the wider sense and the salients affecting the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. Because Asia is also linked to the economies of both Japan and China, and also in a lesser sense to South Korea, there is tremendous interest for us in South-East Asia to link up and provide some degree of comfort level, mill to mill relationship within the armed forces of the South-East Asian countries and Northeast Asia. I think that would be the gist of my remarks.
[The Indo's; no bullshit when it comes to saying it how it is here!! ]
Last edited:
SECURING REGIONAL WATERS: HOW MUCH PROGRESS?
Q&A
Professor Juwono Sudarsono, Minister of Defence, Indonesia
Hon Hermogenes E Ebdane Jr, Secretary of National Defense, The Philippines
Hon Rohitha Bogollagama, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ssion-speeches-2007/fourth-plenary-session-qa
.................
Professor Juwono Sudarsono
..............
We did try to support the peace process on the basis of the strategic dimension, that it was in the interest of all parties using the Straits of Malacca not to have a separate state in the northern tip of Sumatra that would cause tremendous problems would affect the economies of all of East Asia and Southeast Asia because of the dangers to all supplies since 70% of the oil and gas from the gulf area passes through the Straits of Malacca and the Straights of Indonesia. It is in the interest of all states, including the United States, to provide that agreement.
.............
We would like to appeal to China, Japan and South Korea to provide this technical assistance on an Asian-wide basis as well as a bilateral basis to the little states because as the Chinese have said over the past ten years, their predicament is the Malacca Straight predicament. So much of their oil, about 50 million barrels a day is required by China to fuel their 10% growth rate for the next couple of years, or all the oil from Africa will have to pass through the Straits of Malacca, the Straits of Indonesia and my colleague, the Defence Minister of India, yesterday called for cooperation with India and Asian, principally for guaranteeing the trade links between India and Southeast Asia. So we have a tremendous responsibility in Indonesia.
..........
Denny Blair[?]
I think we need to draw a couple of distinctions in this conversation between the different categories of maritime security that we are talking about, there really is no serious threat to the flow of big tankers through the Straits of Malacca from anyone but another nation state. These are huge ships. In normal conditions the pirates that come on them do nothing but go in and try to rob what they can from the crew and get off again. There is a potential terrorist threat, if a terrorist group were able to get hold of a large tanker right here off of Singapore and drive it into the port or into the refining areas, that would cause a huge destructive problem, but that is different from interrupting the flow of oil to Northeast Asia for which I see there is no really serious threat.
..............
Rohitha Bogollagama
..........
Today we are about to announce the licences for the oil exploration, all the eight blocks have been carved out in the Calvary Bay on the West Coast of the Sri Lanka, on the north-west coast of Sri Lanka, and that has an implication. We do not have safe passage and safe seas surrounding us. That affects the exploratory operations by other foreign bidders and foreign takers. So we want peace and both peace at water as well as on land, and to as which we need cooperation. Only two blocks have been given, one to China, and the other one to India. So we want these governments to move in fast and take control of this location and start off with the operations because we need that for our economy.
Bed time.
..........
Q&A
Professor Juwono Sudarsono, Minister of Defence, Indonesia
Hon Hermogenes E Ebdane Jr, Secretary of National Defense, The Philippines
Hon Rohitha Bogollagama, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka
http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the...ssion-speeches-2007/fourth-plenary-session-qa
.................
Professor Juwono Sudarsono
..............
We did try to support the peace process on the basis of the strategic dimension, that it was in the interest of all parties using the Straits of Malacca not to have a separate state in the northern tip of Sumatra that would cause tremendous problems would affect the economies of all of East Asia and Southeast Asia because of the dangers to all supplies since 70% of the oil and gas from the gulf area passes through the Straits of Malacca and the Straights of Indonesia. It is in the interest of all states, including the United States, to provide that agreement.
.............
We would like to appeal to China, Japan and South Korea to provide this technical assistance on an Asian-wide basis as well as a bilateral basis to the little states because as the Chinese have said over the past ten years, their predicament is the Malacca Straight predicament. So much of their oil, about 50 million barrels a day is required by China to fuel their 10% growth rate for the next couple of years, or all the oil from Africa will have to pass through the Straits of Malacca, the Straits of Indonesia and my colleague, the Defence Minister of India, yesterday called for cooperation with India and Asian, principally for guaranteeing the trade links between India and Southeast Asia. So we have a tremendous responsibility in Indonesia.
..........
Denny Blair[?]
I think we need to draw a couple of distinctions in this conversation between the different categories of maritime security that we are talking about, there really is no serious threat to the flow of big tankers through the Straits of Malacca from anyone but another nation state. These are huge ships. In normal conditions the pirates that come on them do nothing but go in and try to rob what they can from the crew and get off again. There is a potential terrorist threat, if a terrorist group were able to get hold of a large tanker right here off of Singapore and drive it into the port or into the refining areas, that would cause a huge destructive problem, but that is different from interrupting the flow of oil to Northeast Asia for which I see there is no really serious threat.
..............
Rohitha Bogollagama
..........
Today we are about to announce the licences for the oil exploration, all the eight blocks have been carved out in the Calvary Bay on the West Coast of the Sri Lanka, on the north-west coast of Sri Lanka, and that has an implication. We do not have safe passage and safe seas surrounding us. That affects the exploratory operations by other foreign bidders and foreign takers. So we want peace and both peace at water as well as on land, and to as which we need cooperation. Only two blocks have been given, one to China, and the other one to India. So we want these governments to move in fast and take control of this location and start off with the operations because we need that for our economy.
Bed time.
..........
SECURITY COOPERATION IN ASIA: MANAGING ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS
Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Defence, Singapore
Much has been said about the rise of China and India, and how their economic growth seems inexorable. Less has been said about the underlying dynamics of existing partnerships and alliances, and how these have transformed as a result. Intra?Asian trade has grown. Let me provide some perspective on this. China has become the largest trading partner of many Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea and – I am told – of Australia as well. China is also India’s second?largest trading partner. It is well known that China has a large trade surplus with the United States (US). It is perhaps less well known that China has a large trade deficit with Taiwan and South Korea. The value of this large US trade deficit is around 1.6% of the United States’ GDP. By comparison, Taiwan enjoys a trade surplus with China equivalent to 9.2% of Taiwan’s GDP and Korea’s trade surplus with China is 4% of Korea’s GDP.
While the trade flows between Japan and China, and between Australia and China, are more balanced, they have been growing at a noticeably fast pace. Between 2000 and 2005, the value of Japan’s exports to China increased at 34% year?on?year. In comparison, Japan’s total exports only increased at an annual rate of 5% over the same period. Similarly, Australia’s exports to China increased at an annual rate of 23%, compared with 7% growth in exports to the rest of the world over the same period.
India is catching up fast. It is not just trade, but investments and services as well, such as tourism, education, and financial and medical services. While it is well known that many companies have outsourced operations to India, it is less well known that Indian companies have also branched out in a big way. This year, India’s foreign direct investment outflow is expected to surpass inflows, which will push India to the number three spot for capital outflows in Asia, ahead of China and Korea, and behind only Japan and Australia.
These shifts in the economic landscape present their own challenges. With industrialisation comes the need for energy and other resources. 70% of Japan’s and 80% of China’s oil imports sail through the Malacca Strait every year. Japan and China are extending and strengthening their maritime reach, to have a greater direct ability to influence the security of the sea routes through which their energy supplies pass. While that is to be expected, countries in the region also expect that this should be done in a way that is constructive and consistent with international law.
................
Many have posed the question of how China’s peaceful development will interact with American pre-eminence in the Asia Pacific region, in the three dimensions of security, economics and ideas – or, as some have succinctly put it, ‘military, money and minds.’ The outcome is likely to be more complex, less clear-cut, and involve more players than just these two.
Our actions today will determine whether we leave a legacy of enduring peace, where our peoples can develop and thrive, or whether we evolve a system where we have Cold War, or Cold Peace that chills the region for decades to come. Our job today is to build a robust regional framework, but we are not painting on a fresh canvas when we talk about the regional security architecture. The existing architecture already consists of overlapping networks with myriad memberships and agendas. Allow me to expand on some of these.
One key element of relationships in this region is the set of US alliances. This is underpinned by defence treaties that the US has with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. Singapore is a Major Security Cooperation Partner of the US, a term that captures the relationship as being more than just friends, but not treaty allies. These strategic partnerships have provided the overarching peace and stability for regional economies to grow and prosper.
Regional multilateral frameworks are looser and less institutionalised. The largest is the 26?member, soon to be 27?member, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with a membership that stretches from the Pacific Rim to South and Southwest Asia. The ARF can muster a wide range of opinions on defence and security issues. The challenge for the ARF lies in translating talk into action, but we have seen a few encouraging signs. Singapore hosted the ARF Maritime Security Shore Exercise earlier this year, and Indonesia and Australia will co?hosts a table top exercise in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief next year. Such steps build mutual understanding, create habits of cooperation, and move from the conceptual to the practical. They point to what is possible. It is important to maintain the momentum.
Another large framework is the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC). Primarily established to facilitate economic growth, trade and investment in the Asia Pacific region, the 21?member forum has in recent years expanded its agenda to include security issues such as terrorism and supply chain security. That security issues have made their way into APEC’s agenda is a reflection that security today encompasses more than the traditional military and policing dimension and extends into important areas like economics, the environment and health, which are now closely intertwined. It is positive that APEC has been able to tackle such security?related economic issues, as these will continue to be important in the future.
The East Asia Summit (EAS) is one of Asia’s newer forums. Built with ASEAN at its core, the 16?member EAS comprises ASEAN member countries Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea, the so?called ’10 plus three plus three’. Despite holding only its second summit in Cebu earlier this year, the EAS demonstrated strong collective resolve by adopting the Cebu Declaration on East Asian energy security. The Declaration paves the way for the EAS to tackle the complex and multifaceted challenge of energy security.
Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Defence, Singapore
Much has been said about the rise of China and India, and how their economic growth seems inexorable. Less has been said about the underlying dynamics of existing partnerships and alliances, and how these have transformed as a result. Intra?Asian trade has grown. Let me provide some perspective on this. China has become the largest trading partner of many Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea and – I am told – of Australia as well. China is also India’s second?largest trading partner. It is well known that China has a large trade surplus with the United States (US). It is perhaps less well known that China has a large trade deficit with Taiwan and South Korea. The value of this large US trade deficit is around 1.6% of the United States’ GDP. By comparison, Taiwan enjoys a trade surplus with China equivalent to 9.2% of Taiwan’s GDP and Korea’s trade surplus with China is 4% of Korea’s GDP.
While the trade flows between Japan and China, and between Australia and China, are more balanced, they have been growing at a noticeably fast pace. Between 2000 and 2005, the value of Japan’s exports to China increased at 34% year?on?year. In comparison, Japan’s total exports only increased at an annual rate of 5% over the same period. Similarly, Australia’s exports to China increased at an annual rate of 23%, compared with 7% growth in exports to the rest of the world over the same period.
India is catching up fast. It is not just trade, but investments and services as well, such as tourism, education, and financial and medical services. While it is well known that many companies have outsourced operations to India, it is less well known that Indian companies have also branched out in a big way. This year, India’s foreign direct investment outflow is expected to surpass inflows, which will push India to the number three spot for capital outflows in Asia, ahead of China and Korea, and behind only Japan and Australia.
These shifts in the economic landscape present their own challenges. With industrialisation comes the need for energy and other resources. 70% of Japan’s and 80% of China’s oil imports sail through the Malacca Strait every year. Japan and China are extending and strengthening their maritime reach, to have a greater direct ability to influence the security of the sea routes through which their energy supplies pass. While that is to be expected, countries in the region also expect that this should be done in a way that is constructive and consistent with international law.
................
Many have posed the question of how China’s peaceful development will interact with American pre-eminence in the Asia Pacific region, in the three dimensions of security, economics and ideas – or, as some have succinctly put it, ‘military, money and minds.’ The outcome is likely to be more complex, less clear-cut, and involve more players than just these two.
Our actions today will determine whether we leave a legacy of enduring peace, where our peoples can develop and thrive, or whether we evolve a system where we have Cold War, or Cold Peace that chills the region for decades to come. Our job today is to build a robust regional framework, but we are not painting on a fresh canvas when we talk about the regional security architecture. The existing architecture already consists of overlapping networks with myriad memberships and agendas. Allow me to expand on some of these.
One key element of relationships in this region is the set of US alliances. This is underpinned by defence treaties that the US has with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. Singapore is a Major Security Cooperation Partner of the US, a term that captures the relationship as being more than just friends, but not treaty allies. These strategic partnerships have provided the overarching peace and stability for regional economies to grow and prosper.
Regional multilateral frameworks are looser and less institutionalised. The largest is the 26?member, soon to be 27?member, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with a membership that stretches from the Pacific Rim to South and Southwest Asia. The ARF can muster a wide range of opinions on defence and security issues. The challenge for the ARF lies in translating talk into action, but we have seen a few encouraging signs. Singapore hosted the ARF Maritime Security Shore Exercise earlier this year, and Indonesia and Australia will co?hosts a table top exercise in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief next year. Such steps build mutual understanding, create habits of cooperation, and move from the conceptual to the practical. They point to what is possible. It is important to maintain the momentum.
Another large framework is the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC). Primarily established to facilitate economic growth, trade and investment in the Asia Pacific region, the 21?member forum has in recent years expanded its agenda to include security issues such as terrorism and supply chain security. That security issues have made their way into APEC’s agenda is a reflection that security today encompasses more than the traditional military and policing dimension and extends into important areas like economics, the environment and health, which are now closely intertwined. It is positive that APEC has been able to tackle such security?related economic issues, as these will continue to be important in the future.
The East Asia Summit (EAS) is one of Asia’s newer forums. Built with ASEAN at its core, the 16?member EAS comprises ASEAN member countries Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea, the so?called ’10 plus three plus three’. Despite holding only its second summit in Cebu earlier this year, the EAS demonstrated strong collective resolve by adopting the Cebu Declaration on East Asian energy security. The Declaration paves the way for the EAS to tackle the complex and multifaceted challenge of energy security.